Fisheries · Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • 531 Fisheries AmericAn Fisheries...

Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • www.fisheries.org 529

FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org

Fish News Legislative Update Journal Highlights Calendar Job Center

FisheriesVoL 33 No 11

NoVember 2008

Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation of Dolly Varden, White-spotted Char, and Bull Trout

Cooperative Research Program Goals in New England: Perceptions of Active Commercial Fishermen

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc.

530 Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • www.fisheries.org

Corporate Office 360.468.3375 [email protected]

Biological Services 360.596.9400 [email protected]

Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. www.nmt.us Shaw Island, Washington, USA

Dr. Sean Lema (U. of North Carolina) is studying the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon sp.) in remote corners of Death Valley where summer temperatures reach 49C and the average annual rainfall is just 5 cm. Seven taxa of pupfish occur in Death Valley, each uniquely adapted to its particular habitat, and all exhibiting remarkable phenotypic plasticity—significant morphological and behavioral differences are evident within a couple of generations in response to small environmental changes in their unique habitats. Included in the traits that change are those that may be used to define the species. Thus, when the habitat changes, a species’ phenotypic characteristics may also change, suggesting that habitat restoration for recovery of highly plastic species must consider its affect on phenotype. As well as looking at the patterns of plasticity among pupfishes, Dr. Lema searches for insights into the mechanisms of these phenotypic changes. His experiments suggest that the pupfish’s physiology and

development change in response to slight environmental shifts and contribute to the morphological and behavioral differences he observes among fish in different habitats. The hormone, arginine vasotocin (AVT) is a neurotransmitter that modulates behavior in some fish species. Dr. Lema observed differences in neural AVT phenotype between populations of pupfish, and showed that AVT influences pupfish behavior. He then demonstrated that the AVT system in pupfish is influenced by temperature and salinity changes. Dr. Lema’s work demonstrates the necessity of preserving habitat for these endangered fish, and questions the basic concepts of assigning species. Northwest Marine Technology is proud to have a role in this fascinating study—please contact us if we can help with yours. Lema, S. C. American Scientist 96(1):28-36. Lema, S. C. & G. A. Nevitt. Hormones and Behavior 46(5):628-637. Lema, S. C. & G. A. Nevitt. J. Experimental Biology 209:3499-3509.

To measure the effect of AVT on pupfish behavior, Dr. Lema tagged one group of Amargosa pupfish with NMT’s Visible Implant Elastomer (fish with red tags) and then administered either AVT or a saline solution to them. Fish treated with AVT were less aggressive than the control fish. Photos by S. Lema

Redefining Species


Fisheries AmericAn Fisheries society • www.Fisheries.org edITorIal / subscrIpTIoN / cIrculaTIoN offIces 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 301/897-8616 • fax 301/897-8096 • [email protected] The American Fisheries Society (AFS), founded in 1870, is the oldest and largest professional society representing fisheries scientists. The AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of aquatic resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It also encourages comprehensive education of fisheries scientists and continuing on-the-job training.

Dues and fees for 2008 are $76 in North America ($88 elsewhere) for regular members, $19 in North America ($22 elsewhere) for student members, and $38 ($44) retired members. Fees include $19 for Fisheries subscription. Nonmember and library subscription rates are $106 ($127). Price per copy: $3.50 member; $6 nonmember. Fisheries (ISSN 0363-2415) is published monthly by the American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199 ©copyright 2008. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, Maryland, and at an additional mailing office. A copy of Fisheries Guide for Authors is available from the editor or the AFS website, www.fisheries.org. If requesting from the managing editor, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed envelope with your request. Republication or systematic or multiple reproduction of material in this publication is permitted only under consent or license from the American Fisheries Society. Postmaster: Send address changes to Fisheries, American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110; Bethesda, MD 20814-2199.

Fisheries is printed on 10% post-consumer recycled paper with soy-based printing inks.

AFS OFFICERS

PresideNt William G. Franzin PresideNt eLeCt Donald C. Jackson First ViCe PresideNt Wayne A. Hubert seCoNd ViCe PresideNt William L. Fisher Past PresideNt Mary C. Fabrizio exeCUtiVe direCtor Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam

FISHERIES STAFF

seNior editor Ghassan “Gus” N. Rassam direCtor oF PUbLiCatioNs aaron lerner mAnAging editor Beth Beard ProdUCtioN editor cherie Worth

EdITORS

sCieNCe editors Madeleine Hall-Arber Ken ashley Doug Beard Ken currens William E. Kelso Deirdre M. Kimball Robert T. Lackey dennis lassuy Allen Rutherford Book review editors Francis Juanes ben letcher Keith Nislow

COLUMN: 532 GuEST PRESIDENT’S HOOKA New Home for HabitatA potential new AFS Fish Habitat Section could fill a gap and provide a unified source of information on increasingly important fish habitat issues.Joe Margraf

NEwS: 533 FISHERIEs

JOURNAL HIgHLIgHTS: 534 NoRTH AmERICAN JouRNAl oF AquACulTuRe534 JouRNAl oF AquATIC ANImAl HEAlTH

UpdATE: 536 lEGISlATIoN AND PolICyElden Hawkes, Jr.

Feature: 537 Fisheries CONserVatiONevolution, ecology, and Conservation of Dolly Varden, White-spotted Char, and Bull trout A review of the ecology, evolution, and conservation of native chars across the Pacific Rim provides a synthesis of insights and issues Jason Dunham, Colden Baxter, Kurt Fausch, Wade Fredenberg, Satoshi Kitano, Itsuro Koizumi, Kentaro Morita, Tomoyuki Nakamura, Bruce Rieman, Ksenia Savvaitova, Jack Stanford, Eric Taylor, and Shoichiro Yamamoto

Feature: 551 humaN DimeNsiONsCooperative research Program Goals in New england: Perceptions of active Commercial FishermenActive commercial fishermen in New England hold an array of perceptions about cooperative research that will impact the design and effectiveness of cooperative research programs.Troy W. Hartley and Robert A. Robertson

LETTERS:

560 To THE EDIToRFreshwater Species Conservation Status listThe Value of Information

aFs resOLutiON:563 resOLutiON ON the DeVeLOPmeNt OF iNstream FLOW PrOGrams

COLUMN:

564 GuEST DIRECToR'S lINeStream Restoration WorkshopSpeakers at a Western Division stream restoration workshop outlined both lessons learned as well as possible new interdisciplinary solutions.Jude Wait

COLUMN:

566 STuDENTS' ANGleInstitution Representative Program: A Program to Boost Student Participation in AFsKristal N. Schneider and Robert Dodd

CALENdAR:

568 FISHERIES EVENTs

ObITUARy:

570 RoBERT DAVID BISHoPFather of Tennessee’s Striped Bass Program

AFS ANNUAL MEETINg:

572 3RD CAll FoR PAPERs

pUbLICATIONS:

574 Book REVIEW

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

576 JoB CENTER

VoL 33 No 11 NoVember 2008

Advanced Telemetry Systems . . . . 579afs Western division . . . . . . . . 570California Department of Fish and Game 577ecotrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569Emperor Aquatics, Inc. . . . . . . . 559floy Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547Halltech Aquatiac Research, Inc.. . . 549Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. . . . 580Little River Research and Design . . . 559Lotek Wireless. . . . . . . . . . . . 550Myriax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575Northwest Marine Technology, Inc. . 530O. S. Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 559sonotronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570Sound Metrics Corp. . . . . . . . . 541Texas Chapter of AFS . . . . . . . . 568Vemco (A Division of Amirix) . . . . 543 Vemco (A Division of Amirix) . . . . 545

tell advertisers you found them through Fisheries!

advertising index

Contents

537

CoVer: A pair of Miyabe char (Salvelinus malma miyabei), a subspecies of Dolly Varden endemic to Lake Shikaribetsu, Hokkaido Island, Japan. Credit: Kentaro Morita.


The American Fisheries Society is on the verge of creating a new unit, the Fish Habitat section. If all goes accord-ing to plan, the new Section will be approved at the Annual Meeting in Nashville next August. Until now, habitat issues have been a major thrust of several Sections, particularly the Water Quality and Fisheries Management Sections. However, there has been no Section dedicated solely to the advancement of knowledge and exchange of information on the broad scope of multidisciplinary marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish habitat issues. The nascent Fish Habitat Section will focus primarily on the physical aspects of habitat and will work closely with other Sections in advancing habitat issues. The eventual direction and foci of the new Section will, of course, evolve over time as its membership grows and participates in the building process.

Some questions that come immediately to mind are,

You mean we didn’t have a habitat Section already?

Do we really need another Section, given that Section memberships seem to be declining overall?

How will this Section relate to other Sections?

How do we go about starting a new Section?

In fact, I encountered all of these questions (and others like, “Are you nuts?”) while pitching the new Section concept at the Annual Meeting in Ottawa. The answer to the first question should be obvious by now. Given the number of enthusiastic responses I received while at Ottawa, I think the time has definitely come for a Section dedicated exclusively to habitat; both interest and need will be sufficient for a vibrant and expanding membership. A key component of the overall mission of the habitat Section will be to work hand-in-glove with others that have habitat as an important component of their interests. I will spend the remainder of this column describing how one goes about establishing a new Section of AFS. And to answer the final question above, “obviously.”

The very first step in creating a new Section is for some-one or some group of AFS members to perceive a need. In this case, I have found myself doing more and more habitat-based fisheries research and was looking for obvi-ous sources of information on habitat issues. It was time to renew my annual AFS membership, so I thought I would join the habitat Section, but discovered that there was no habitat Section. I was familiar with the habitat efforts of the Water Quality and Fisheries Management Sections, but saw no single place to go to learn more about physical habitat. Thus, I perceived a need, a selfish one perhaps, but a need

nonetheless. I queried several of my colleagues and their consensus was, “This is a good idea—why don’t YOU put one together, and we’ll join.” Fortunately, having spent six years as the AFS Constitutional Consultant, I had a pretty good idea how to go about the process. First, you must draft a petition seeking to form the new Section and get the signatures of at least 100 active AFS members. The Annual Meeting is an obvious place to do this; plus, it doesn’t hurt to spend some time explaining your ideas and thoughts to a large cross-section of the AFS leadership and Governing Board.

The second order of business is to draft a set of bylaws for the new Section. Here I worked with Gwen White, the current AFS Constitutional Consultant, who will present the new bylaws to the Governing Board for approval at its mid-year meeting in March 2009. Assuming the bylaws are approved, the next step is to draft an AFS Rules amendment, again working with the Constitutional Consultant, to be approved by the membership at the next Annual Meeting. Sections are listed by name with their objectives in the AFS Rules, which must be approved by the AFS membership at large. In addition to Governing Board and membership approvals, the new Section must obtain a minimum of 50 membership pledges from active AFS members. While all of this is taking place, a slate of temporary officers for the new Section will have been identified to serve as leaders until the Section can hold formal elections. Once the Section bylaws and AFS Rules amendment are approved and membership pledges are received, the Section becomes official as soon as its officers are notified by the AFS executive director.

While this process may seem convoluted and perhaps a little daunting to some, it has served AFS well for decades. The process works; we will soon have a new home for fish habitat. If you are interested in joining the Fish Habitat Section, please e-mail or send your pledges to Executive Director Gus Rassam, at AFS headquarters, and watch your annual dues notice for the new Section appearing after the 2009 Annual Meeting.

Officers, pro tem, for the new Fish Habitat Section are: President Joe margraf, [email protected]; President elect Kyle Hartman, [email protected]; and secretary treasurer, amanda rosenberger, [email protected].

COLUMN: GuEST PRESIDENT’S Hook

A New Home for Habitat

Joe margrafmargraf is with the U.s. geological

survey, alaska Cooperative Fish and wildlife research Unit in Fairbanks.

He can be contacted at [email protected].


NEwS: FISHERIES

UPdates oN roteNoNe reregistrAtion On 31 March 2007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), authorizing the reregistration of rotenone (EPA 738-R-07-005). The AFS Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee (FMCS) has been working with the three registrants (called the Rotenone Task Force) and EPA for the past several years to secure the reregistration. The FMCS, EPA, and Rotenone Task Force meet in Washington, D.C., on 13 August 2008 to discuss concerns related to mitigation measures and label changes proposed by EPA to lessen risks to humans and the environment. EPA was open to considering alternatives to their proposals. FMCS provided alternative wording on key EPA mitigation issues of applicator safety, application systems, application rates, neutralization criteria, and public notification that were believed either unfeasible or unnecessary. Although two issues remain, EPA has tentatively agreed to the FMCS alternate proposals and FMCS agreed to develop a Rotenone Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manual provided that it is not considered labeling. FMCS met in Reno, Nevada, during the last week of October 2008 to finalize the outline of the Rotenone SOP Manual and assign teams to write the manual narrative and individual SOPs. An initial draft is expected by June 2009 with the final peer-reviewed document available by November 2009. The Rotenone SOP Manual will be available from the registrants or on-line at www.fisheries.org/units/rotenone.

trAining clAsses oN PisCiCides oFFered The EPA REDs for both rotenone and antimycin recommend that applicators

receive training on the use of piscicides. AFS is offering a week-long course on planning and executing successful projects using rotenone and antimycin. The course instructors have trained over 140 biologists since development of the training began in 2001. AFS, in conjunction with Arizona Game and Fish Department and the University of Arizona, is conducting this week-long course in Tucson from 12–16 January 2009. There are still a few seats available for the Tucson class. Due to numerous inquiries for the need for more training, AFS has scheduled another class from 18–22 May 2009 in Logan, Utah, in conjunction with Utah State University. For more information on either class offering, contact Brian Finlayson ([email protected]) or Don Skaar ([email protected]). Applications are available through Shawn Johnston ([email protected]) at AFS (301/897-8616 ext. 230) or online at www.fisheries.org (click on AFS Task Force on Fisheries Chemicals Course in the home page).

—AFS Task Force on Fishery Chemicals, Fish Management Chemicals Subcommittee

cAll For 2009 nFhAP AwArd NomiNatioNs The National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHAP) Annual Awards honor excep-tional individuals or partner entities who have demonstrated a commitment to fish habitat conservation, science, or education. The awards celebrate those who have demonstrated extraordinary dedication, innovation, or excellence in aquatic resource conservation. National Fish Habitat Awardees show how indi-viduals can and do make a difference.

Awards are made annually on the basis of nominations submitted by Fish Habitat Partnerships and the hundreds of organizations that make up the Partners

Coalition. From among the nomina-tions submitted by partnerships and the coalition, the NFHAP Board will select several of the most meritorious for these nationally recognized awards. Honorable mentions may be made. Nominations are sought for the following catego-ries: Exceptional Vision, Extraordinary Action, Scientific Achievement, and Outreach and Educational Achievement. submissions deadline: 16 January 2009. For nomination forms and instructions, please see www.fishhabi-tat.org.

CHesaPeaKe bLUe Crab disaster FUnding NOAA’s Fisheries Service today announced that the states of Maryland and Virginia will each be eligible for up to $10 million to assist watermen who have been economically hurt by the commercial fishery failure in the soft shell and peeler blue crab fishery in Chesapeake Bay.

“Watermen and their families have been hard hit by a 41% decline in the soft shell and peeler crab fishery since the late 1990s,” said Jim Balsiger, acting NOAA assistant administra-tor for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “We’re pleased the governors said they would like to use federal aid to restore important blue crab habitat and to create more diverse economic opportunities for watermen, possibly in aquaculture.” Balsinger added, “We applaud their idea to use some aid to employ crab fishermen to retrieve lost or abandoned crab pots that continue to capture fish and crabs, doing long-term damage to the fishery.”

The states will now submit plans to NOAA’s Fisheries Service outlining how the funds will be used.


[Communication] reproductive ecology and spawning substrate Preference of the northern leatherside chub. Eric J. Billman, Eric J. Wagner, and Ronney E. Arndt, pages 273-280.

[Technical Note] Preliminary evaluation of gulf sturgeon Production and sustainability of a Zero-discharge Pond water recirculating tank system. Andrew M. Lazur, Deborah B. Pouder, and Jeffrey E. Hill, pages 281-285.

effects of dissolved oxygen Concentration on oxygen Consumption and development of Channel Catfish eggs and Fry: implications for hatchery management. les Torrans and Jim Steeby, pages 286-295.

water Budgets for a rice–crawfish Aquaculture system. W. Ray McClain and Robert P. Romaire, pages 296-304.

tolerance of Channel Catfish Fry to abrupt ph changes. Charles C. Mischke and David J. Wise, pages 305-307.

New Nitrogen Fertilization recommendations for bluegill Ponds in the southeastern United states. Christopher A. Boyd, Puan Penseng, and Claude E. Boyd, pages 308-313.

in Vitro and in Vivo evaluation of Potassium Permanganate treatment efficacy for the Control of acute experimental infection

by Flavobacterium columnare in Channel catfish. Ahmed M. Darwish, Andrew J. Mitchell, and Melissa S. Hobbs, pages 314-322.

Copper sulfate toxicity to Channel Catfish Fry: yolk sac versus swim-Up Fry. David L. Straus, pages 323-327.

degree-days as a tool to determine the Heating requirement for Channel catfish spawning in earthen Ponds. patrice Pawiroredjo, Jonathan Lamoureux, Steven G. Hall, and Terrence R. Tiersch, pages 328-337.

[Technical Note] seasonally adjusting ration Levels of Juvenile Hatchery spring Chinook salmon and Coho salmon does Not alter Adult survivals. Jack M. Tipping, pages 338-342.

density and shelter influence the Adaptation of wild Juvenile cauque Prawns Macrobrachium americanum to culture conditions. Marcelo U. García-Guerrero and Juan Pablo Apun-Molina, pages 343-346.

growth and Feed efficiency of Juvenile channel catfish reared at different water temperatures and Fed diets Containing various levels of Fish meal. Menghe H. li, Edwin H. Robinson, Brian C. Peterson, and Terry D. Bates, pages 347-352.

[Technical Note] Using directional Feeders to Feed Juvenile Coho salmon in an attempt

to increase Adult survivals. Jack M. Tipping, pages 353-355.

Field Collection, Handling, and refrigerated storage of sperm of red snapper and gray snapper. Kenneth L. Riley, Edward J. Chesney, and Terrence R. Tiersch, pages 356-364.

[Communication] early induction of spawning of tautogs and Comparison of growth rates of larvae from early and normally spawned Broodstocks. dean M. Perry, Grace Klein-MacPhee, and Aimee Keller, pages 365-369.

a Novel Henneguya species from Channel Catfish described by morphological, Histological, and molecular characterization. M. J. Griffin, L. M. Pote, D. J. Wise, T. E. Greenway, M. J. Mauel, and A. C. Camus, pages 127-135.

Potential for dissemination of the Nonnative salmonid Parasite Myxobolus cerebralis in Alaska. E. Leyla Arsan and Jerri L. Bartholomew, pages 136-149.

detection of salmonellae from Fish in a natural river system. James Gaertner, Phil E. Wheeler, Shola Obafemi, Jessica Valdez, Michael R. J. Forstner, Timothy H. Bonner, and Dittmar Hahn, pages 150-157.

a survey to determine the Presence and distribution of Largemouth bass Virus in wild Freshwater Bass in new york state. G. H. Groocock, S. G. Grimmett, R. G. Getchell, G. A. Wooster, and P. R. Bowser, pages 158-164.

in Vitro and in Vivo studies of the Use of some medicinal Herbals against the Pathogen Aeromonas hydrophila in goldfish. Ramasamy Harikrishnan and Chellam Balasundaram, pages 165-176.

[Communication] ] oxytetracycline treatment reduces bacterial diversity of intestinal microbiota of Atlantic salmon. Paola Navarrete, Pamela Mardones, Rafael Opazo, Romilio Espejo, and Jaime Romero, pages 177-183.

JOURNAL HIgHLIgHTS: NoRTH AmERICAN JouRNAl oF AquACulTuRE

to subscribe to AFs journals go to www.fisheries.org and click on Publications/Journals.

VOLUME 70 ISSUE 3 JULy 2008

Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science

—new jou

rna l—

from the a

merican Fis

heries Socie

ty

www.fisheries.org/mcf

Do you have multimedia files to accompany your article?

Submit your paper to Marine and Coastal Fisheries.

JouRNAl oF AquATIC ANImAl HEAlTHVOLUME 20 ISSUE 3 SEpTEMbER 20


eUroPeAn Union Agrees to toUgher Protection oF tUnA stoCKs

EU fisheries ministers stopped short of calling for an all-out fishing ban, but did call to step up protection of dwin-dling European bluefin tuna stocks and fight illegal fishing in November. The ministers have called on the European Commission to push for a series of mea-sures at a key international meeting on tuna, which are particularly threatened in the Mediterranean. They are also ready to accept a shorter fishing season as well as stepped-up controls all along the process, from fishing to fattening in cages to bringing the fish to market.

Both France and Italy opposed a mid-June decision by the European Commission that ordered a halt to industrial fishing of bluefin tuna. This decision was reached due to quotas for 2008 being reached two weeks early. Both countries questioned the commis-sion’s figures and asserted that their fishing industries had not reached even half their quotas. Environmental group Greenpeace said the incident was proof that more needed to be done to protect the species, calling for a fishing ban to allow stocks to recover.

More than 50,000 tons of blue-fin tuna are caught every year in the Mediterranean. To prevent stocks from collapsing, that figure should be limited to 15,000 tons in the short term, according to the International Commission for the Conservation of atlantic Tunas.

HoUse Committee oN NatUraL resoUrces sets its AgendA

On 21 November 2008, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources published its agenda for the 111th Congress. Items on the committee’s agenda include:

Planning for the Effects of Climate Change on Land and Water Resources Climate change is altering our natural landscape and affecting our water, land, and biological resources. For example, changing precipitation patterns related to climate change affect the ability of our water delivery infrastructure to capture and provide water in traditional ways. Further, both aquatic and ter-restrial species that rely on water for survival are adversely impacted by criti-cally dry times. The distribution of these species and their habitats is projected to shift in response to changes in ecologi-cal processes. At the same time, coastal and marine habitats and species will be impacted by sea level rise and increased ocean acidification. Understanding how climate change will affect the hydrologic cycle as well as our water, land, and biological resources and ensuring that federal agencies and states are prepar-ing to address how climate change affects their programs and management decisions is critical. The committee will continue its efforts to bring together sci-entists and the managers of our water, land, and biological resources to discuss the federal role in identifying the effects of climate change and to promote problem-solving strategies to sustain our natural resources and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

1872 Mining Law —Ending Corporate WelfareMultinational corporations are currently allowed to mine valuable hardrock minerals, such as gold and silver, from western federal lands without paying a royalty to the people of the United States and to allow corporations to purchase these lands at 1872 prices. During the 110th Congress, the com-mittee reported a comprehensive

Mining Law reform bill that took into account the public interest by imposing, for the first time, a production royalty and established a clear and enforceable set of environmental protections. The House passed this legislation on a 244-166 vote on 1 November 2007, and the committee will revisit this pressing issue during the 111th Congress.

Protecting and Restoring our OceansThe synergistic effects of human activity, including habitat destruction and over-fishing (domestically and internation-ally), as well as the spread of invasive species, climate change, and pollution have initiated changes of untold magni-tude. Science must inform the utilization of ocean goods and services so that the abundance healthy oceans provide can be enjoyed. Stewardship responsibili-ties will include realizing federal and regional ocean governance reforms, reviving our traditional international leadership role, implementing improve-ments in the management of fisheries and marine mammals, protecting special places in the marine environment as the inheritance of future generations, plan-ning for the effects of climate change and offshore energy development, and providing the funding necessary to set a meaningful pace of positive change. Recovering Endangered SpeciesThe Endangered Species Act (ESA) serves as the cornerstone of biodiver-sity conservation in the United States. The committee will work with the new Administration to explore innova-tive measures to recover endangered populations of fish, wildlife, and plants in an era of limited budgets. Using the findings of the Government Accountability Office and promoting

Elden Hawkes, Jr.

aFs Policy Coordinator Hawkes can be contacted at

[email protected].

Continued on page 571

UpdATE: lEGISlATIoN AND PolICy


aBstraCt: We review the ecology and conservation of three lesser-known chars (genus Salvelinus): Dolly Varden (S. malma), white-spotted char (S. leucomaenis), and bull trout (S. confluentus). Dolly Varden is distributed across the northern Pacific Rim and co-occurs with bull trout and white-spotted char at the southern extremes of its range. In contrast, bull trout and white-spotted char are naturally isolated, with the former restricted to North America and the latter distributed in northeastern Asia. Though the range of Dolly Varden overlaps with the two other chars, it is most closely related to Arctic char (S. alpinus), whereas bull trout and white-spotted char are sister taxa. Each species exhibits diverse life histories with respect to demographic characteristics, trophic ecology, and movement. This diversity appears to be tied to environmental variability (e.g., temperature, habitat connectivity), resource availability (e.g., food), and species interactions. Increasingly, these interactions involve nonnative species including nonnative salmonines and changes in food webs related to establishment of species such as Mysis shrimp in large lakes. As humans expand into the remote and pristine habitats that support these three chars, we encourage proactive consideration of the lessons learned where chars have already declined and internationally-based research and conservation.

Feature: FIshERIEs CONsERVATION

Jason Dunham,

Colden Baxter, Kurt Fausch, Wade Fredenberg, satoshi Kitano, itsuro Koizumi, Kentaro morita, tomoyuki Nakamura, Bruce rieman, Ksenia savvaitova, Jack stanford, eric taylor, and shoichiro Yamamoto Dunham is a research scientist at the U.s. Geological survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem science Center, Corvallis, Oregon.

Baxter is a professor at the Department of Biology, Idaho state University, Pocatello.

Fausch is a professor at the Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado state University, Fort Collins.

Fredenberg is the Montana bull trout coordinator at the U.s. Fish and Wildlife service, Kalispell, Montana.

Kitano is a research scientist at the Nagano Environmental Conservation Research Institute Kitago, Nagano, Japan.

Koizumi is a postdoctoral researcher at the Division of Environmental science Development, Graduate school of Environmental science, hokkaido University, sapporo, Japan.

Morita is a research scientist at the hokkaido National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, Kushiro, Japan.

Nakamura is a research scientist at the National Research Institute of Fisheries science, Fisheries Research Agency, Nikko, Tochigi, Japan.

Rieman is a research scientist emeritus at the U.s. Forest service, Rocky Mountain Research station, seeley Lake, Montana.

savvaitova is a professor at the Moscow state University, Gori. , Moscow, Russia.

stanford is a professor at the Flathead Lake Biological station, The University of Montana, Polson.

Taylor is a professor at the Department of Zoology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Yamamoto is a research scientist at the National Research Institute of Fisheries science, Fisheries Research Agency, Nikko, Tochigi, Japan.

evolución, ecología y conservación de las truchas “Dolly Varden,” “white-spotted” y tororesumeN: se revisa la ecología y conservación de tres truchas poco conocidas del género Salvelinus: Dolly Varden (S. malma), “white-spotted” (S. leucomaenis) y la trucha toro (S. confluentus). La primera se distribuye en el borde del Pacífico norte y co-ocurre con la trucha toro y la “white-spotted” en el extremo sur de su ámbito geográfico. En contraste, la trucha toro y la trucha “white-spotted” se encuentran naturalmente aisladas; la primera se restringe a Norte América y la segunda al noreste de Asia. A pesar de que el rango de Dolly Varden se sobrepone con el de las otras especies, está más relacionada con la trucha del Artico (S. alpinus) mientras que “white-spotted” y la trucha toro se consideran clados hermanos. Cada especie presenta diferente historia de vida con respecto a sus características demográficas, ecología trófica y movimiento. Esta diversidad parece estar determinada por la variación del ambiente (p. ej. temperatura y conectividad de hábitat) disponibilidad de recursos (i.e. alimento) e interacción con otras especies. Estas interacciones involucran cada vez más a especies no-nativas como algunos salmoninos y cambios en redes tróficas asociadas al establecimiento de ciertas especies como Mysis en los grandes lagos. En virtud de la expansión humana hacia hábitat más remotos y prístinos donde se distribuyen estas truchas, sugerimos que se tomen en cuenta de forma proactiva las lecciones tanto de aquellos casos en los que las poblaciones de truchas han declinado como del resultado de las investigaciones y esfuerzos de conservación a nivel internacional.

evolution, ecology, and Conservation of Dolly Varden, White-spotted Char, and Bull trout white-spotted char

KeN

Tar

o M

or

ITa


Figure 2. Photographs showing representatives of bull trout, Dolly Varden, and white-spotted char: upper left, the Miyabe char S. m. miyabei (Oshima), a subspecies of Dolly Varden from Hokkaido; upper right, white-spotted char from Russia; lower left, bull trout from Montana; lower right, white-spotted charr from Hokkaido.

Figure 1. Approximate known distributions of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout around the North Pacific rim. Given the remoteness of many areas where these species may occur, distributions are not fully described (e.g., Reist et al. 2002).

K. sa

vv

IaTo

vaK

. Mo

rITa

K. M

orITa

K. M

orITa


iNtrODuCtiON

Most research on salmonine fishes has focused on the genera Oncorhynchus (e.g., Pacific salmon, cutthroat and rainbow trout) and Salmo (e.g., Atlantic salmon and brown trout). Within chars, genus Salvelinus, work has focused mostly on Arctic char (S. alpi-nus), lake trout (S. namaycush), and brook trout (S. fontinalis). Though research on these species has provided a broad founda-tion for understanding the biology, ecology, and conservation biology of salmonines, even within this well-studied group gaps in understanding and uncertainties pose significant management and conservation problems.

here we focus on the biology and conservation of three lesser-known chars: Dolly Varden (S. malma), white-spotted char (S. leucomaenis), and bull trout (S. confluentus). We consider these species together because they share a similar Pacific Rim geog-raphy and evolutionary history, and provide an instructive com-parison of the conservation problems and uncertainties associated with management of native chars in North America and Asia. Our specific objectives are to: (1) provide a brief and selective overview of major aspects of the evolution and ecology of these three species, (2) compare and contrast conservation issues within and among the species, and (3) suggest priorities for future research and conservation efforts.

BiOGeOGraPhY aND eVOLutiONarY histOrY

Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout are distrib-uted across the North Pacific rim (Figure 1). Dolly Varden is the most widespread of these species, occurring from Puget sound in Washington state, U.s.A., north to the Alaska Peninsula, Yukon, and Northwest Territories to far eastern Asia, including northern siberia and neighboring islands, south to hokkaido, the northern-most island of the Japanese archipelago (Armstrong and Morrow 1980; Reist et al. 1997; 2002). White-spotted char is distributed from honshu (the main island of Japan) north to the Navarin Cape, Russia (savvaitova 1980; Kawanabe 1989), on the Asian side of the North Pacific coast. Bull trout occupy coastal and inland drainages of western North America on both sides of the continental divide from Alaska and northern Canada to southern Oregon, but has been extirpated from the southernmost extent of its historical range in northern California, U.s.A. (Cavender 1978; haas and McPhail 1991; Reist et al. 2002). Both white-spotted char and bull trout overlap with Dolly Varden in portions of their respective ranges.

Recent evidence indicates that these three chars share a com-plicated evolutionary history. Allozyme, nuclear DNA, and mito-chondrial DNA (mtDNA) analyses all revealed sister groupings within Salvelinus that usually included one sister group compris-ing white-spotted char and bull trout, and one comprising Dolly Varden and Arctic char (Crane et al. 1994; Phillips et al. 1999; Crespi and Fulton 2003). A recent study based on mtDNA dem-onstrated, however, suggested that Dolly Varden and Arctic char do not constitute reciprocally monophyletic clades, which casts some uncertainty as to the distinct taxonomic status of these two species (Brunner et al. 2001). By contrast, a multilocus micro-satellite (nuclear) DNA examination of sympatric populations of Dolly Varden and Arctic char in western Alaskan lake sys-tems showed that sympatric forms were reproductively isolated from one another and acted as valid species (Taylor et al. 2008).

Consequently, historical introgression may be responsible for the relationship between Dolly Varden and Arctic char mtDNA observed by Taylor et al. (2008). historical and contemporary introgression has been reported between bull trout and Dolly Varden in populations that have a natural zone of overlap in North America (Taylor 2004), and between white-spotted char and Dolly Varden in Asia (Radchenko 2004; Yamamoto et al. 2006a). Evolutionary patterns within Dolly Varden, white-spot-ted char, and bull trout are unique for each species, both in terms of described subspecies and morphological variability.

Across the North Pacific rim, four subspecies of Dolly Varden are recognized: the northern Dolly Varden (S. malma malma Walbaum), the southern Asian Dolly Varden (S. m. kraschenin-nikovi Taranetz), the southern American Dolly Varden (S. m. lordi Günther), and the Miyabe char (S. m. miyabei Oshima; Figure 2). Chromosome and mtDNA data identified three phylogenetic groups, whose geographic distributions correspond to three Dolly Varden subspecies: S. m. malma, S. m. krascheninnikovi, and S. m. lordi (Phillips et al. 1999; Oleinik et al. 2005). Miyabe char inhabits only Lake shikaribetsu, hokkaido, Japan, which has been isolated historically due to volcanic activity. Miyabe char also has unique morphological characteristics in gill raker counts, pectoral fin length, the number of scales along the lateral line, and the muscle color compared to other conspecific populations (Maekawa 1984).

White-spotted char is presently separated into four subspecies based on zoogeographic patterns and morphological characteris-tics: S. leucomaenis leucomaenis (Pallas), S. l. japonicus (Oshima), S. l. pluvius (hilgendorf), and S. l. imbrius (Jordan & McGregor). Populations north of honshu Island, including hokkaido Island, Japan, and sakhalin Island and Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, are classified as S. l. leucomaenis. They are characterized by large white spots (Figure 2; savvaitova et al. 2007). The other three subspe-cies are endemic to honshu Island, Japan, each with distinctive coloration. A recent phylogeographic study, however, has shown that the current subspecies designations of white-spotted char are not compatible with lineages identified with mtDNA markers (Yamamoto et al. 2004). Consequently, the taxonomy within S. leucomaenis remains in question.

At present, no subspecies of bull trout has been proposed, but the species was not formally described until relatively recently (Cavender 1978; haas and McPhail 1991). Within bull trout, multiple lines of evidence suggest at least two major evolutionary lineages in western North America: coastal and interior bull trout (e.g., Taylor et al. 1999; Taylor and Costello 2006), with further subdivision of these lineages proposed by other authors (Leary et al. 1993; spruell et al. 2003; Costello et al. 2003). As with Dolly Varden, these evolutionary groups within bull trout are associated with patterns of historical hydrographic connectivity (i.e., by the Coastal-Cascade Mountain Crest) across the geographic range of S. confluentus (haas and McPhail 1991). Patterns of phenotypic variability among populations have not been rigorously analyzed, as with other salmonines within the range of bull trout (e.g., O. mykiss; Keeley et al. 2005).

DiVersitY OF LiFe histOries

Around the Pacific Rim, Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout each inhabit a broad geography of habitats that present a range of physiological conditions and patterns of resource avail-


ability, as well as species interactions within distinct communities. This heterogeneity likely influenced resource polymorphisms and life history variation at a variety of scales, as has been observed in other species (e.g., smith and skúlason 1996). here we use the term “life history” in a broad sense to represent a broad range of phenotypic characters, including body morphology, age and growth, and feeding and movement behaviors. Within individual river systems, key factors influencing life histories include: local variability in temperature and flow patterns; the presence of lakes, reservoirs, and marine habitats in addition to widely varying riv-erine habitats encompassed by small channels in headwaters to expansive flood plains further downstream; and the strength of ecological connectivity among these different habitats (Ward and stanford 1995).

Age, growth, and reproduction

Dolly Varden and white-spotted char reportedly first mature between 1 and 7 years of age whereas bull trout are believed to mature later, generally between 5 and 7 years of age. Maximum life spans of these species may exceed 10–15 years (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; savvaitova 1980; Yamamoto et al. 1999; savvaitova et al. 2007). Rapid growth is often associated with movement into more productive environments, including the opportunity for piscivory. Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout may reach maturity at sizes ranging from < 8 to > 80 cm (TL) depending on growth environments and differential selec-tive pressure on reproduction by males and females (e.g., Jonsson and Jonsson 1993; hendry et al. 2003). Migratory individuals that move from natal tributary streams into rivers, lakes, and the ocean occur in all three species; migratory individuals tend to mature at larger sizes (> 30 cm TL) compared to non-migratory or resident indivduals, which can mature at sizes down to 10 cm or less in small headwater streams (Koizumi et al. 2006a).

The timing and frequency of spawning can be highly variable. For example, in bull trout, spawning in inland habitats with colder winters and warmer summers may be initiated by late August, whereas in systems with lower seasonal variability (e.g., coastal environments; Brenkman et al. 2001) spawning may occur sev-eral weeks later. spawning in white-spotted char and bull trout is believed to be restricted entirely to stream environments, but wholly lake resident Dolly Varden have been reported from Alaska (Armstrong and Morrow 1980), Kamchatka peninsula (savvaitova 1973), and Kuril Onekotan (northern Kuril Islands; savvaitova et al. 2000). All species are iteroparous, but patterns of mortality during spawning have not been well quantified.

Trophic ecology

The striking trophic polymorphisms observed in Arctic char (e.g., Jonsson et al. 1988; Johnston 2002) have not been reported in white-spotted char or bull trout, but savvaitova and Kokhemenko (1971) reported discrete piscivorous and benthi-vorous morphs for Dolly Varden from large lakes in Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands (savvaitova et al. 2000). It is not clear whether these species have less capacity for the trophic special-ization observed in Arctic char or whether there has simply been too little work completed to recognize the full variability that may exist. At least one study suggested that some white-spotted char may develop dense gill rakers suited to foraging on plank-

ton (Takami and Kinoshita 1990). Evidence of trophic polymor-phisms for bull trout is lacking. Though trophic polymorphisms are not well documented for these species, considerable spatial and temporal variation in diet and plasticity in foraging behavior has been observed. Each species has achieved some notoriety for their opportunistic and often piscivorous habits (Behnke 1980; Takami and Aoyama 1997; Takami and Nagasawa 1996). Because of their proclivity to prey on salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), all three chars were actively targeted for eradication in some early fishery management campaigns. For example, Colpitts (1997), elaborat-ing on trout conservation in southern Alberta between 1900 and 1930, described an attitude he termed the “hierarchy of species” where “handsomeness, gaminess, and edibility” ranked high, and fish imported from the East were generally considered superior to native predators such as the bull trout. The “better classes of fish” such as brook trout, cutthroat trout, and grayling (Thymallus arcti-cus) were coveted and reared in hatcheries to fill the void created by eradicating undesirable species. As Colpitts (1997) opined:

The bull trout’s failings—its image as a cowardly and lethargic sport fish, its flesh termed ‘insipid,’ and its character blighted by a reputation for cannibalism—targeted it among other species, for eradication by conservationists intent upon creating a perfect underwater world.

In spite of these perceptions chars have diverse diets, vary-ing from fish (including cannibalism) to invertebrates (e.g., Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). Moreover, these char display flexibility in their mode of foraging. For instance, Dolly Varden and bull trout have been observed to shift from drift-feeding on aquatic and terrestrially-derived invertebrates to picking benthic invertebrates from the benthos in response to diminished sup-ply of drifting prey or competition with other salmonines for this resource (Nakano et al. 1992; Fausch et al. 1997; Nakano et al. 1999a). Likewise, all three species are known to opportunistically shift to scavenging of fish eggs, especially those of Pacific salmon, but also those of conspecifics (Maekawa and hino 1987).

Movement

All three species commonly exhibit a great deal of variation in migratory behavior and related population characteristics. Migration typically is related to availability of food resources that are distant from natal habitat, and the relative benefits of migra-tion may vary between the sexes (e.g., Jonsson and Jonsson 1993; hendry et al. 2003; Koizumi et al. 2006a). Anadromy is common in white-spotted char and Dolly Varden but is more prevalent at higher latitudes (Yamamoto et al. 1999; savvaitova et al. 2007) where freshwater food webs are less productive and marine waters provide alternative food resources (Maekawa and Nakano 2002). Anadromy is also known in bull trout (Brenkman et al. 2007), though apparently is less common, perhaps because the species’ range is more inland in comparison to Dolly Varden and white-spotted char. some variability in migratory behavior in chars may also relate to variability in thermal requirements of different life stages. Quinn (2005) suggested that juveniles may emigrate from cold natal areas to find relatively warmer habitats where they are able to grow faster. In accordance with this hypothesis, char require very cold water (< 10 oC) for successful egg incubation (e.g., McPhail and Murray 1979), yet these cold habitats are not ideal for juvenile growth (selong et al. 2001). Likely, both food

Sound Metrics Corp.


availability and temperature interact to influence movement and migratory behavior of these chars (e.g., hughes and Grand 2000).

All three chars use a wide range of habitats, from small streams to large rivers, lakes, and marine habitats. however, few studies have been focused on their ecology during occupation of marine and large river habitats. Limited evidence suggests that within populations showing long-distance (> 20 km) migrations, larger (> 300 cm, TL) individuals tend to move quickly between natal habitats and migratory destinations, whereas behavior of smaller (< 30 cm) migratory individuals is more diverse and less predict-able (Muhlfield and Marotz 2005; Monnot et al. 2008). Thus, there may be important age or life-stage dependent patterns of migration, with variability in migratory behavior more complex than classic definitions based only on origins or destinations. In many cases, the actual “destination” of migration is not clear, as fish may use multiple habitats during migration (e.g., Brenkman and Corbett 2005), or change destinations among years (O’Brien 2001).

Another less-studied factor influencing migratory behavior is sex. small resident or so-called “precocious” males have been noted in Dolly Varden (Koizumi et al. 2006a; savvaitova 1960), white-spotted char (Morita and Morita 2002; savvaitova et al. 2007), and bull trout (Kitano et al. 1994; Baxter 2000). Even in populations considered to be largely migratory, mature, non-migratory males that adopt “sneaking” mating tactics probably occur, as this strategy is commonly observed in many other closely related salmonines (e.g., Esteve 2005). The occurrence of such individuals could be important, since they are unlikely to be con-sidered in typical counts of adults or spawning surveys.

In summary, movement is a defining feature of these chars, but our understanding of their movements and migrations have been largely limited to descriptive studies and a focus on localized pat-terns. Only a few examples of process-based movement studies exist and clearly more work is needed to explicitly frame move-ment and migration in a broader ecological-evolutionary context (Jonsson and Jonsson 1993; hendry et al. 2003).

sPeCies iNteraCtiONs aND eCOsYstem rOLes

Biotic interactions can be critically important in shaping the local distribution and abundance of chars. Char distribution may be affected by the availability of prey species, competition for these or other resources, regulation by predation or parasitism, or additional indirect interactions within their ecosystems (Fausch et al. 1994). Research on biotic interactions involving these chars has largely focused on their potential competition with other native and nonnative salmonines, whereas relatively little is known about interactions involving these char as predators or prey of native biota, or other roles they may play in ecosystems.

Interspecific competition with native salmonines

Though the geographic ranges of white-spotted char and bull trout overlap with Dolly Varden, they usually do not co-occur in the same local habitats (e.g., within a stream network). In regions where the species overlap, Dolly Varden usually occurs in colder upstream segments whereas either of the other two species occurs downstream, and there is typically a narrow zone of sympatry, although there are exceptions. For example, in hokkaido Island

For demonstrations and sales informationsee www.oceanmarineinc.com

757.382.7616 [email protected]

DIDSON helps count abundance and determine behavior of fish where other

acoustic equipment has been ineffective. Visit www.soundmetrics.com for a largecollection of sonar films and information.

www.soundmetrics.com

Monitoring Endangeredor Threatened Species ?

datumDIDSON

The fat, long mark indicates the presence of a sturgeon among a number of small-mouthed

bass in the forebay of the CJ Strike Dam on the Snake River. The analyst can draw a box around the mark and immediately get a “tape loop” of

the source DIDSON data for verification and sizing of the fish that formed the mark.

A new feature, the clustergram, graphically indicates the presence

of moving objects that exceed intensity and size parameters.

It allows analysts to sift through days of data at a rate of 800 frames/s

(200 times real-time if dataare collected at 4 frames/s).


this distribution pattern is observed for Dolly Varden and white-spotted char, and is correlated with changes in temperature across the region (e.g., climatic gradients) and within river networks (e.g., localized water temperatures; Fausch et al. 1994; Nakano et al. 1996). Presently, little is known about potential interac-tions that may occur between bull trout and Dolly Varden (but see hagen and Taylor 2001).

Interspecific competition with other native salmonines is considered important in causing exclusion of these chars or regulating coexistence with the other salmonines. For example, in coastal British Columbia lakes native coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) exclude Dolly Varden from the productive near-shore littoral zone during summer where food resources are richest, causing them to shift to foraging in the open waters or deep benthic zone (henderson and Northcote 1985; hindar et al. 1988). In streams, salmonines compete for positions in mixed-species dominance hierarchies from which they can ambush drifting invertebrate prey (Nakano 1995). stream-living Dolly Varden shift, however, between drift and benthic foraging as availability of invertebrates varies (Fausch et al. 1997; Nakano et al. 1999a). This may result in partitioning food resources between Dolly Varden and white-spotted char in zones where they over-lap in hokkaido mountain streams, and promote species coexis-tence. At a larger scale, coexistence of these chars is regulated by condition-specific interactions and physiological responses to water temperature (Taniguchi and Nakano 2000). White-spotted char appear to dominate Dolly Varden behaviorally and grow relatively faster at warmer temperatures in downstream reaches, but Dolly Varden can persist where they are better adapted than white-spotted char to colder temperatures in upstream reaches. spatial patterns of segregation in other portions of the ranges of these two species may not parallel those observed in hokkaido streams, however (e.g, Kamchatka; J. stanford, personal observa-tion). Other than in their common role as piscivores, interac-tions between bull trout and other native fishes have received less research attention than Dolly Varden and white-spotted char, despite the potential for strong interactions with bull trout and co-occurring native species such as cutthroat trout (e.g., Nakano et al. 1992; Jakober et al. 2004).

Interactions with nonnative salmonines

In contrast to interactions with native salmonines that shape char distribution, the introduction and invasion of nonnative sal-monines has threatened to extirpate these three chars from many habitats throughout broad regions of their distribution via hybrid-ization, competition, and disruption of spawning. Nonnative chars such as brook trout and lake trout have been most commonly implicated in the declines of native char, although other spe-cies can be important. hybridization with nonnative brook trout has been reported for bull trout in northwestern North America (Leary et al. 1993; Kanda 1998; Kanda et al. 2002) and for white-spotted char in honshu and hokkaido Islands in Japan (suzuki and Kato 1966; Kitano 2004; Kitano, unpublished data), and may result in displacement of the native char through gamete wastage (Leary et al. 1993). Although introgression has been observed in bull trout (Kanda et al. 2002), limited viability in post-F1 crosses may limit development of hybrid swarms (e.g., Allendorf et al. 2001). The reported ecological impacts of nonnative brook trout on bull trout are highly variable and likely dependent on habi-

tat conditions and the spatial and temporal scales of observation (e.g., Nakano et al. 1998; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Rieman et al. 2006; McMahon et al. 2007). Impacts of nonnative lake trout on bull trout appear to be more consistently negative, but mecha-nisms of the interaction are similarly unclear (Donald and Alger 1993; Fredenberg 2002).

Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) are rapidly invading hokkaido Island (Takami and Aoyama 1999; Takami et al. 2002), and have been reported to exclude Dolly Varden and white-spotted char from foraging positions or habitats in hokkaido streams (Baxter et al. 2004; Morita et al. 2004; hasegawa et al. 2004; hasegawa and Maekawa 2006). In a field experiment, rainbow trout usurped terrestrial invertebrate prey on which Dolly Varden depend, and reduced their growth by 35% in 6 weeks compared to control reaches (Baxter et al. 2007). Rainbow trout introduced in North America could also compete with bull trout, but this has not been thoroughly inves-tigated (Boag 1987). In addition, spring spawning rainbow trout can reduce reproductive success of native fall-spawning char by excavating their spawning redds before the fry emerge (termed superimposition; Taniguchi et al. 2000). superimposition by fall-spawning kokanee salmon (O. nerka) on bull trout redds has also been documented, but at least in the latter case a study found that it was not harmful to bull trout due to the shallower depth at which the smaller nonnative kokanee (a form of landlocked sock-eye salmon commonly introduced in lakes) excavated substrates for spawning relative to larger bull trout (Weeber 2007).

Despite evidence for apparent displacement, there are cases where several of these salmonines appear to coexist with chars where their native ranges overlap. For example, Dolly Varden coexist with rainbow trout or steelhead in Alaska and Kamchatka rivers, probably by partitioning food resources via the foraging mode shift described above (see Dolloff and Reeves 1990; Fausch et al. 1997). since bull trout are naturally sympatric with either rainbow trout or cutthroat trout across most of their range, inter-actions with these species or with kokanee seem less likely to be negative and may even be beneficial in providing high quality food resources for bull trout. Indeed, many of the largest speci-mens of bull trout come from lakes with populations of introduced kokanee (Vidergar 2000; Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). Native lake trout and bull trout naturally coexist in certain drain-ages east of the continental divide in western North America, but when nonnative lake trout are established in lacustrine systems with native bull trout the latter are typically severely reduced or extirpated (Donald and Alger 1993). Examples of natural coexis-tence of lake trout with other chars are rare in other studied loca-tions, and coexistence may be facilitated by natural geomorphic barriers (hershey et al. 1999).

An important hypothesis is that the native char can resist invasion and persist in watersheds where intact habitat allows expression of the full range of life histories, including large, highly fecund, migratory individuals. When these migratory individuals are lost (e.g., through habitat loss or fragmentation, or overfish-ing), nonnative fishes may be better able to displace or replace the native char (Nelson et al. 2002). We view understanding the mechanisms that allow native chars to resist invasions by nonna-tive species, and the interactions of these mechanisms with habi-tat disruption, to be an important topic for future research.

Vemco (A Division of Amirix)Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • www.fisheries.org 543

Ecosystem roles

Relatively little is known about interactions involving these three char species as predators or prey in broader ecological com-munities, or other roles they may play in ecosystems. Bull trout are predators on other salmonines, especially Oncorhynchus spp. (O. nerka, O. clarkii, and O. mykiss) in lakes in the inland west-ern United states, where they become more piscivorous with increasing size (Ricker 1941; Beauchamp and Van Tassell 2001). During periods when Pacific salmon are concentrated, such as spawning or the out-migration of smolts, salmon eggs or juve-niles may become a temporarily important food for anadromous populations of Dolly Varden and white-spotted char (Armstrong and Morrow 1980; Kawanabe and Mizuno 1989). In turn, these chars may become prey for conspecifics and other piscivorous fishes and a host of semi-aquatic and terrestrial predators such as otters, bears, birds, or snakes.

Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout likely have important effects on the structure of communities and the flow of energy and nutrients in the ecosystems they inhabit, though there have been few apparent investigations of these topics. Through their roles as predators on invertebrates and other fishes, these chars have the capacity to indirectly regulate organisms at lower trophic levels. For instance, two studies conducted in northern Japan (Nakano et al. 1999b; Baxter et al. 2004) showed that when terrestrial invertebrate prey were not available, Dolly Varden intensified their foraging on benthic invertebrates, which triggered an increase in the growth of algae but also reduced the emergence of adult aquatic insects and the abundance of spiders in the riparian forest. studies like these have not been conducted for bull trout or white-spotted char, but similar indirect effects on algae have been described for brook trout in a Canadian stream (Bechara et al. 1992). If predation by these chars can regulate prey fish populations in lakes, they could indirectly control phy-toplankton dynamics, as has been described for many other pis-civorous fishes, including lake trout and Arctic char (Carpenter and Kitchell 1993). Moreover, these chars, through their migra-tory life histories, can play roles yet to be described to link the food webs of multiple habitats, and they may also transport energy and nutrients as has been found for other migratory fishes (e.g., Gende et al. 2002). In sum, there is good evidence that chars play important ecosystem roles, and local extirpations or declines in these species may have much wider impacts than is commonly recognized.

ChaLLeNGes FOr CONserVatiON

Many of the conservation problems for Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout have been elaborated using the tools of contemporary conservation biology. Population viability analy-sis has been applied to assess long-term persistence of bull trout and white-spotted char (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Morita and Yokota 2002; Post et al. 2003; staples et al. 2005). In both species, sensitivity analyses have pointed to the importance of survival of older age classes to population persistence. Post et al. (2003) found that populations of migratory bull trout may be highly sus-ceptible to declines from increased mortality of larger, older fish due to angling. Bull trout (especially females) in such systems do not attain first maturity until at least 5 years of age. Morita and Yokota (2002) similarly found that survival of adults was impor-

Whether you are actively tracking large pelagic fish or conducting presence/absence studies, the

VR100 will get the job done. The VR100 has a flexible systems architecture with 8MB of non-volatile internal memory, GPS positioning and precise timing, USB link to PC or laptop, and field installable software upgrades. Other features include:

Simultaneous, multi-frequency reception and detection tracking algorithms Wide dynamic range allowing multi-tag reception

without gain adjustment Splash proof case with marine grade connectors Operates with coded and continuous tags (sold separately) Operation frequency 10-100kHz

VEMCO’s VR100 AcousticTracking Receiver is the

ultimate fish tracking solution.

VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704

www.vemco.com

Making Waves inAcoustic TelemetryMaking Waves inAcoustic Telemetry

Track your fish with the most advanced acoustic

tracking receiveravailable today.

Track your fish with the most advanced acoustic

tracking receiveravailable today.


tant for population persistence of white-spotted char in highly fragmented river systems. In their study system, however, white-spotted char matured at much smaller sizes and ages (e.g., most females were mature by age 2). Thus in both migratory bull trout and non-migratory white-spotted char, survival of older juveniles and adults appears to be a critical factor influencing population persistence.

Population viability analysis has provided important perspec-tives on the dynamics of individual populations of native char, but in most cases these local populations are embedded within a network of habitats and other populations. Within the context of a stream network, connectivity among populations (dispersal) and migrations among complementary habitats used for feeding, breeding, or refuge (schlosser 1991) are relevant. Aggregations of local salmonine populations likely exhibit complex dynamics and structuring that represent a composite of different metapopu-lation, landscape, and historical processes (Costello et al. 2003; Koizumi et al. 2006b; Whiteley et al. 2006). Because many of these processes can operate on large (> 10 km) spatial and long (> 10 year) temporal scales, they are very difficult to study with conven-tional ecological methods. single “snapshot” studies of large scale patterns of habitat or “patch” occupancy by bull trout (Dunham and Rieman 1999), white-spotted char (Morita and Yamamoto 2002), and Dolly Varden (Koizumi and Maekawa 2004) show that local population persistence in stream networks is strongly tied to patch size (stream or watershed size), connectivity, and quality (e.g., human influences, flow regime). The importance of habitat size and connectivity to persistence of chars documented by these studies is supported by several lines of evidence that examine temporal processes (e.g., dispersal, demographic variation, and environmental variability) driving these patterns. This includes evidence from models of population dynamics (e.g., Rieman and Allendorf 2001; Morita and Yokota 2002) and empirical applica-tions of molecular genetic markers. Results from the latter show that disruption of connectivity can lead to lower effective size of local populations by simultaneously reducing dispersal and local adult population sizes of native chars (Griswold 2002; Costello et al. 2003; Yamamoto et al. 2004; Whiteley et al. 2006; Koizumi et al. 2006b; Taylor and Costello 2006; Yamamoto et al. 2006b).

Although many ideas from contemporary conservation biol-ogy have played an important role in our understanding of native chars, several fundamental challenges remain to be addressed for the conservation of these species. As with most fishes, threats to Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout are associated with past and present human influences on water resources that lead to habitat loss and degradation, loss of connectivity, invasion of nonnative species, and excessive harvest (legal, poaching, and incidental mortality; Post et al. 2003). As described above, many of these influences have driven populations to extinction in just a few decades (see Interactions with nonnative salmonines, above). Our experience parallels that of many biologists working with chars (e.g., Al-Chokhachy et al. 2008) in that it can be extremely difficult to quantify the influences of specific threats and interac-tions among them, for example, evaluating the tradeoff between isolating char populations with barriers to prevent invasions by nonnative salmonines versus restoring connectivity to allow native chars the ability to move throughout networks (Fausch et al. 2006).

Overall, the status of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout appears to show a general north to south trend in

the status of populations, with increasing imperilment near the southern margins of their ranges. For example, in the United states and Japan in particular, protected areas that support cur-rent strongholds of native chars are only small relicts of the range of habitats that were occupied in recent history. In the United states, many strongholds for bull trout are now located in higher elevation wilderness areas, whereas historically occupied areas were likely more expansive (Rieman et al. 1997). Distribution of bull trout has been consistently associated with unmanaged land-scapes with low human population influence as exemplified by the density of roads (e.g., Rieman et al. 1997; Baxter et al. 1999; Dunham and Rieman 1999; Ripley et al. 2005). Lower elevation habitats such as floodplains and riparian corridors of large rivers are critical to many salmonines, but they are also most likely to be highly altered by humans (Ward and stanford 1995; Beechie et al. 2003). In Japan, a large number of hatchery-reared white-spot-ted char have been stocked into lower elevation rivers and lakes. Consequently, populations of wild chars are often restricted to the upper reaches of rivers above natural waterfalls and human-constructed barriers that prevent the stocked fish from migrating upstream (Nakamura 2001). A focus on protecting only existing populations of native chars may therefore risk ignoring locations and/or habitats that are important for long-term viability.

Even though past changes are often clearly evident and impor-tant to Dolly Varden, white-spotted charr, and bull trout, possible future changes in populations and habitat are likely to pose even greater challenges. It appears likely that conditions will change substantially across landscapes in response to cycles of natural dis-turbance and succession processes (Reeves et al. 1995; Dunham et al. 2003). These natural processes will interact with human influ-ences, such as climate change (Nakano et al. 1996; Rieman et al. 2007; Rahel and Olden 2008), human land and water use (e.g., habitat conditions), fishing (harvest and indirect impacts), and impacts of nonnative species. Many case studies suggest that even large populations can become highly vulnerable if present condi-tions change. For example, bull trout were once very abundant and thought to be secure in Flathead Lake and the Flathead River system in northwest Montana, but populations quickly crashed in the early 1990s, due to major ecosystem changes and cascading food web interactions as a result of the introduction of a single nonnative invertebrate species, the opossum shrimp (Mysis rel-icta). This introduction disrupted trophic relationships between native (bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout) and nonnative fishes (lake trout, kokanee, and lake whitefish [Coregonus clupea-formis]) that had been relatively stable for nearly half a century prior to the Mysis introduction (spencer et al. 1991). We view analysis of these threats and planning for long-term persistence of chars (e.g., reserve design; Groves 2003) to be among the highest priority information needs for understanding long-term conserva-tion of the native chars considered here. On a more positive note, there are some examples of native char expanding rapidly once threats are mitigated, such as the rapid increase in populations of bull trout in the Metolius River basin of Oregon (Ratliff 1992) and in Lake Kananskis in Alberta, Canada (Johnston et al. 2007) following decreased harvest mortality.

CONCLusiONs

Our review suggests a number of fruitful areas of future inves-tigation for learning more about the basic evolutionary biology

Vemco (A Division of Amirix)


and ecology of Dolly Varden, white-spotted char, and bull trout. Given the uncertain future for these species, we argue that these basic questions are directly relevant to applied conservation. For example, if we do not fully understand processes that contrib-ute to the development of evolutionary and ecological diversity within and among chars, how can we develop long-term plans to conserve this diversity? how can these chars coexist with other fishes in some locations, yet apparently not in other loca-tions? This question has direct relevance for managing invasive salmonines that may threaten native chars. What is the role of chars in aquatic ecosystems and how do food web interactions influence chars and ecosystems? In effect, the broad distribution of these species across both ecological and human geographies creates major challenges to addressing these critical questions about chars. More often our knowledge is based on a fragmented collection of isolated studies focused on narrowly framed issues of local interest. With this ad-hoc approach it can be very difficult to understand a species, and many of the questions we pose here are simply too broad to be adequately addressed in any particular locality. Accordingly, we encourage a stronger dialogue among biologists working across the ranges of these species and hope this synthesis represents an initial step in that direction.

aCKNOWLeDGmeNts

support for the september 2005 workshop leading to this arti-cle was provided by the UsDA Forest service, Rocky Mountain Research station, Boise Aquatic sciences Laboratory and the American Fisheries society, Western Division. Facilities for the workshop were provided by the Flathead Lake Biological station of The University of Montana. We appreciated comments from David L. G. Noakes, Xanthippe Augerot, two anonymous review-ers, and editorial assistance from R. hoffman. All improved the manuscript significantly.

reFereNCes

al-Chokhachy, r. L., W. Fredenberg, and s. spalding. 2008. surveying professional opinion to inform bull trout recovery and management decisions. Fisheries 33(1):18-28.

allendorf, F. W., r. F. Leary, P. spruell, and J. K. Wenburg. 2001. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:613-622.

armstrong, r. h., and J. e. morrow. 1980. The Dolly Varden charr, Salvelinus malma. Pages 99-140 in E. K. Balon, ed. Charrs: salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The hague, Netherlands.

Baxter, C. V., K. D. Fausch, m. murakami, and P. L. Chapman. 2004. Fish invasion restructures stream and forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85:2656-2663.

_____ 2007. Invading rainbow trout usurp a terrestrial prey subsidy to native charr and alter their behavior, growth, and abundance. Oecologia 153:461-470.

Baxter, C. V., C. a. Frissell, and r. F. hauer. 1999. Geomorphology, logging roads, and the distribution of bull trout spawning in a for-ested river basin: implications for management and conservation. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 128:854-867.

Baxter, J. s. 2000. Aspects of the reproductive ecology of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Chowade River, British Columbia. M.s. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Over 10,000 units deployed worldwide provides opportunities for researchers

to collaborate and share data!

VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)Tel: 902-450-1700 Fax: 902-450-1704

www.vemco.com

Making Waves inAcoustic TelemetryMaking Waves inAcoustic Telemetry

The VR2W Single Channel Receiver was designed us-ing the same proven technology as the VR2. Affordable, compact, easy to use, long-lasting and flexible, the VR2W is ideal for any freshwater and marine research project. With the VR2W, VEMCO has made the VR2 even better!

Significantly faster upload speed - retrieve data 20 times faster than the VR2 and from up to 7 receivers simultaneously

Increased data storage capability enables users to collect substantial amounts of field data - 8 MBytes (1-million detections), 4 times that of the VR2

Field upgradable design allows the VR2W to be upgraded in the field

All detections are retained in non-volatile memory so data is saved even if the unit unexpectedly fails

Fully compatible with various size coded transmitters and sensor tags

The VR2W also uses enhanced PC Software. The new VEMCO User Environment (VUE) PC Software for

initialization, configuration and data upload from VEMCO receivers allows users to combine data from multiple receivers of varying types into a single integrated database.

Contact us about affordable options for upgrading your VR1s and VR2s to VR2W receivers.

VEMCO’s VR2W deliversthe best results in freshwater

and marine environments

VEMCO’s VR2W deliversthe best results in freshwater

and marine environments


Beauchamp, D. a., and J. J. Van tassell. 2001. Modeling sea-sonal trophic interactions of adfluvial bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 130:204-216.

Bechara, J. a., G. moreau, and D. Planas. 1992. Top-down effects of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a boreal forest stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 49:2093-2103.

Beechie, t. J., P. roni, e.a. steel, and e. Quimby (editors). 2003. Ecosystem recovery planning for listed salmon: an integrated assessment approach for salmon habitat. U.s. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFs-NWFsC-58, seattle, Washington.

Behnke, r. J. 1980. A systematic review of the genus Salvelinus. Pages 441-480 in E. K. Balon, ed.. Charrs: salmonid fishes of the genus Salvelinus, W. Junk Publishers, The hague, Netherlands.

Boag, t. D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 101:56-62.

Brenkman, s. J., and s. C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for conservation of a threatened spe-cies. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1073-1081.

Brenkman, s. J., s. C. Corbett, and e. C. Volk. 2007. Use of otolith chemistry and radiotelemetry to determine age-specific migratory patterns of anadromous bull trout in the hoh River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 136:1-11.

Brenkman, s. J., G. L. Larson, and r. e. Gresswell. 2001. spawning migration of lacustrine-adfluvial bull trout in a natural area. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 130:981-987.

Brunner, P. C., m. r. Douglas, a. Osinov, C. C. Wilson, and L. Bernatchez. 2001. holarctic phylogeography of arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L.) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Evolution 55:573-586.

Carpenter, s. r., and J. F. Kitchell. 1993. The trophic cascade in lakes. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cavender, t. m. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 3:139-174.

Colpitts, G. 1997. science, streams, and sport: trout conservation in southern Alberta 1900-1930. M.A. thesis, Department of history, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Costello, a. B., t. e. Down, s. m. Pollard, C. J. Pacas, and e. B. taylor. 2003. The influence of history and contemporary stream hydrology on the evolution of genetic diversity within species: an examination of microsatellite DNA variation in bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus (Pisces: salmonidae). Evolution 57:328-344.

Crane P. a., L. W. seeb, and J. e. seeb. 1994. Genetic relation-ships among Salvelinus species inferred from allozyme data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 51 (suppl. 1):182-197.

Crespi, B. J., and m. J. Fulton. 2003. Molecular systematics of salmonidae: combined nuclear data yields a robust phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:658-679.

Dolloff, C. a., and G. h. reeves. 1990. Microhabitat partition-ing among stream-dwelling juvenile coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, and Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 47:2297-2306.

Donald, D. B., and D. J. alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, spe-cies displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238-247.

Dunham, J. B., and B. e. rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical land-scape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9:642-655

Dunham, J. B., m. K. Young, r. e. Gresswell, and B. e. rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and non-native fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178:183-196.

esteve, m. 2005. Observations of spawning behaviour in salmoninae: Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15:1-21.

Fausch, K. D., s. Nakano, and K. ishigaki. 1994. Distribution of two congeneric charrs in streams of hokkaido Island, Japan: considering multiple factors across scales. Oecologia 100:1-12.

Fausch, K. D., s. Nakano, and s. Kitano. 1997. Experimentally induced foraging mode shift by sympatric charrs in a Japanese mountain stream. Behavioral Ecology 8:414-420.

Fausch, K. D., B. e. rieman, m. Young, and J. B. Dunham. 2006. strategies for conserving native salmonid populations at risk from nonnative fish invasions—tradeoffs in using barriers to upstream movement. UsDA Forest service, Rocky Mountain Research station RMRs-GTR-174.

Fredenberg, W. 2002. Further evidence that lake trout displace bull trout in Montana lakes. Intermountain Journal of sciences 8:143-152.

Gende, s. m., e. D. edwards, m. F. Willson, and m. s. Wipfli. 2002. Pacific salmon in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Bioscience 52:917-928.

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus: a literature review. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon.

Griswold, K. e. 2002. Genetic diversity in coastal cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden in Prince William sound, Alaska. Doctoral dissertation. Oregon state University, Corvallis.

Groves, C. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint. Island Press, Covelo, California.

haas, G. r., and J. D. mcPhail. 1991. systematics and distribu-tion of Dolly Varden and bull trout in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 48:2191-2211.

hagen, J., and e. B. taylor. 2001. Resource partitioning as a factor limiting gene flow in hybridizing populations of Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 58:2037-2047.

hasegawa, K., and K. maekawa. 2006. Effect of introduced salmo-nids on two native stream-dwelling salmonids through interspe-cific competition. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1123-1132.

hasegawa, K., t. Yamamoto, m. murakami, and K. maekawa. 2004. Comparison of competitive ability between native and introduced salmonids: evidence from pairwise contests. Ichthyological Research 51:191-194.

henderson, m. a., and t. G. Northcote. 1985. Visual prey detec-tion and foraging in sympatric cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 42:785

hendry, a. P., t. Bohlin, B. Jonsson, and O. K. Berg. 2003. To sea or not to sea? Anadromy versus non-anadromy in salmonids. Pages 92-125 in A. P. hendry and s. C. stearns, eds. Evolution illuminated: salmon and their relatives. Oxford University Press, New York.

floy Tag


hershey, a. e., G. m. Gettel, m. e. mcDonald, m. C. miller, h. mooers, W. J. O’Brien, J. Pastor, C. richards, and J. a. schuldt. 1999. A geomorphic-trophic model for landscape control of arctic lake food webs. Bioscience 49:887-897.

hindar, K., B. Jonsson, J. h. andrew, and t. G. Northcote. 1988. Resource utilization of sympatric and experimentally allopatric cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden charr. Oecologia 74:481-491.

hughes, N. F., and t. C. Grand. 2000. Physiological ecology meets the ideal free distribution: predicting the distribution of size-struc-tured fish populations across temperature gradients. Environmental Biology of Fish 59:285-298.

Jakober, m. L., t. e. mcmahon, r. F. thurow, and C. G. Clancy. 2004. Diel habitat partitioning by bull charr and cutthroat trout during fall and winter in Rocky Mountain streams. Environmental Biology of Fishes 59:79-89.

Johnston, F. D., J. r. Post, C. J. mushens, J. D. stelfox, a. J. Paul and B. Lajeunesse. 2007. The demography of recovery of an over-exploited bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic science 64:113-126.

Johnston, G. 2002. Arctic charr aquaculture. Fishing News Books, a division of Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Jonsson, B., and N. Jonsson. 1993. Partial migration—niche shift versus sexual-maturation in fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 3:348-365.

Jonsson, B, s. skulason, snorrason, O. t. sandlund, h. J. malmquist, P. m. Jonasson, r. Gydemo, and t. Lindem. 1988. Life history variation of polymorphic arctic charr (Salvelinus alpi-nus) in Thinvallavatin, Iceland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 45:1537-1547.

Kanda, N. 1998. Genetics and conservation of bull trout: compari-son of population genetic structure among different genetic mark-

ers and hybridization with brook trout. Doctoral dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula.

Kanda, N., r. F. Leary, and F. W. allendorf. 2002. Evidence of introgressive hybridization between bull trout and brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 131:772-782.

Kawanabe, h. 1989. Japanese char(r(r))s and masu-salmon problems: a review. Physiology and Ecology Japan, special volume 1:13-24.

Kawanabe, h., and N. mizuno (editors). 1989. Freshwater fishes of Japan. Yamakei Publishers, Tokyo (In Japanese).

Keeley, e. r., Parkinson, e. a., and taylor, e. B. 2005. Ecotypic differentiation of native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations from British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 62:1523-1539.

Kitano, s. 2004. Ecological impacts of rainbow, brown and brook trout in Japanese inland waters. Global Environmental Research 8:41-50.

Kitano, s., K. maekawa, s. Nakano, and K. D. Fausch. 1994. spawning behavior of bull trout in the upper Flathead River drainage, Montana, with special reference to hybridization with brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 123:988-992.

Koizumi, i., and K. maekawa. 2004. Metapopulation structure of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden charr inferred from patterns of occurrence in the sorachi River basin, hokkaido, Japan. Freshwater Biology 49:973-981.

Koizumi, i., s. Yamamoto, and K. maekawa. 2006a. Female-biased migration in stream-dwelling Dolly Varden in the shiisorapuchi River, Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1513-1529.

_____. 2006b. Decomposed pairwise regression analysis of genetic and geographic distances reveals a metapopulation structure of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden charr. Molecular Ecology 15:3175-3189.


Leary, r. F., F. W. allendorf, and s. h. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath river drain-ages. Conservation Biology 7:856-865.

maekawa, K. 1984. Life history patterns of the Miyabe charr in shikaribetsu Lake, Japan. Pages 233-250 in L. Johnson, and B. L. Burns, eds. Biology of the Arctic charr, Proceedings of the International symposium on Arctic Charr. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.

maekawa, K., and t. hino. 1987. Effect of cannibalism on alterna-tive life histories in charr. Evolution 41:1120-1123.

maekawa, K., and s. Nakano. 2002. To sea or not to sea: a brief review of salmon migration evolution. Fisheries science 68:27-32.

mcmahon, t. e., a. V. Zale, F. t. Barrows, J. h. selong, and r. J. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 136:1313-1326.

mcPhail, J. D., and C. B. murray. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the Upper Arrow Lakes. British Columbia hydro and Power Authority and Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver.

monnot, L., J. B. Dunham, t. salow, and P. Koetsier. 2008. Influences of body size and environmental factors on autumn downstream migration of bull trout in the Boise River, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:231-240.

morita, K., and s. h. morita. 2002. Rule of age and size at maturity: individual variation in the maturation history of resident white-spotted charr. Journal of Fish Biology 61: 1230-1238.

morita, K., and s. Yamamoto. 2002. Effect of habitat fragmentation by damming on the persistence of stream dwelling charr popula-tions. Conservation Biology 16:1318-1323.

morita, K., and a. Yokota. 2002. Population viability of stream-resident salmonids after habitat fragmentation: a case study with white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) by an individual-based model. Ecological Modelling 155:85-94.

morita K., J. i. tsuboi, and h. matsuda. 2004. The impact of exotic trout on native charr in a Japanese stream. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:962-997.

muhlfeld, C. C., and B. marotz. 2005. seasonal movement and habitat use by subadult bull trout in the upper Flathead River sys-tem, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:797-810.

Nakamura, t. 2001. Estimation of the distribution of genetically pure populations of the Japanese charr by inquiring survey. Journal of the Japan society of Erosion Control Engineering 53:3-9 (in Japanese with English abstract).

Nakano, s. 1995. Competitive interactions for foraging microhabi-tats in a size-structured interspecific dominance hierarchy of two sympatric stream salmonids in a natural habitat. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1845-1854.

Nakano, s., K. D. Fausch, t. Furukawa-tanaka, K. maekawa, and h. Kawanabe. 1992. Resource utilization by bull char and cut-throat trout in a mountain stream in Montana, U.s.A. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 39:211-216.

Nakano, s., F. Kitano, and K. maekawa. 1996. Potential fragmenta-tion and loss of thermal habitats for charrs in the Japanese archi-pelago due to climatic warming. Freshwater Biology 36:711-722.

Nakano, s., s. Kitano, K. Nakai, and K. D. Fausch. 1998. Competitive interactions for foraging microhabitat among intro-duced brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis, and native S. confluentus, and westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, in a Montana stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes 52:345-355.

Nakano, s., K. D. Fausch, and s. Kitano. 1999a. Flexible niche partitioning via a foraging mode shift: a proposed mechanism for coexistence in stream-dwelling charrs. Journal of Animal Ecology 68:1079-1092.

Nakano, s., h. miyasaka and N. Kuhara. 1999b. Terrestrial-aquatic linkages: riparian arthropod inputs alter trophic cascades in a stream food web. Ecology 80:2435-2441.

Nelson, m. L., t. e. mcmahon, and r. F. thurow. 2002. Decline of the migratory form in bull charr, Salvelinus confluentus, and implications for conservation. Environmental Biology of Fishes 64:321-332.

O’Brien, D. s. 2001. Bull trout spawning migrations in the Duncan River: insights from telemetry and DNA. M.s. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Oleinik, a. G., L. a. skurikhina, Vi. a. Brykov, P. a. Crane, and J. K. Wenburg. 2005. Differentiation of Dolly Varden char Salvelinus malma from Asia and North America inferred from PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Russian Journal of Genetics 41:501-508.

Phillips, r. B., L. i. Gudex, K. m. Westrich, and a. L. DeCicco. 1999. Combined phylogenetic analysis of ribosomal ITs1 sequences and new chromosome data supports three subgroups of Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 56:1504-1511.

Post, J. r., C. J. mushens, a. J. Paul, and m. sullivan. 2003. Assessment of alternative management strategies for sustaining recreational fisheries: model development and application to bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:22-34.

Quinn, t. P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon and trout. University of Washington Press, seattle.

radchenko, O. a. 2004. Introgressive hybridization of chars of the genus Salvelinus as inferred from mitochondrial DNA variation. Russian Journal of Genetics 40:1678-1685.

rahel, F. J., and J. D. Olden. 2008. Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:521-533.

ratliff, D. e. 1992. Bull trout investigations in the Metolius River-Lake Billy Chinook system. Pages 37-44 in P. J. howell and D. V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries society, Corvallis.

reeves, G. h., L. e. Benda, K. m. Burnett, P. a. Bisson, and J. r. sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to main-taining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily sig-nificant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 334-349 in J. L. Nielsen, ed. Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. American Fisheries society symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.

reist, J. D., J. D. Johnson, and t. J. Carmichael. 1997. Variation and specific identity of char from northwestern Arctic Canada and Alaska. American Fisheries society symposium 19:250-261.

reist, J. D., G. Low, J. D. Johnson, and D. mcDowell. 2002. Range extension of bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, to the central Northwest Territories, with notes on identification and distribu-tion of Dolly Varden, Salvelinus malma, in the western Canadian Arctic. Arctic 55:70-76.

ricker, W. e. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by predaceous fish. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 5:293-313.

rieman, B. e., and F. W. allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756-764.

Halltech Aquatiac Research, Inc.


rieman, B. e., D. isaak, s. adams, D. horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, and D. myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the Interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 136:1552-1565.

rieman, B. e., D.C. Lee, and r. F. thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 1111-1125.

rieman, B. e., and J. D. mcintyre. 1993. Demographic and habi-tat requirements for the conservation of bull trout Salvelinus con-fluentus. UsDA Forest service Intermountain Research station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden, Utah.

rieman, B. e., J. t. Peterson, and D. L. myers. 2006. have brook trout displaced bull trout along longitudinal gradients in cen-tral Idaho streams? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 63:63-78.

ripley, t., G. scrimgeour, and m.s. Boyce. 2005. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occurrence and abundance influenced by cumulative industrial developments in a Canadian boreal forest watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic science 62:2431-2442.

savvaitova, K. a. 1960. On the dwarf males of genus Salvelinus (salmonidae). Dokl. AN sssR 136:217-220. (In Russian.)

_____. 1973. Ecology and taxonomy of the freshwater charrs genus Salvelinus (Nilson) Richardson from some water bodies of Kamchatka. Voprosy Ichtiologii 13:67-78. (in Russian)

_____. 1980. Taxonomy and biogeography of charrs in the Palearctic. Pages 281-294 in E. K. Balon, ed. Charrs: salmonid

fishes of the genus Salvelinus. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The hague, Netherlands.

savvaitova K. a., O. F. Gritsenko, m. a. Gruzdeva, and K. V. Kuzischchin. 2000. Life strategy and phenetic diversity of the chars from the genus Salvelinus in Chernoe Lake, Onekatan Island. Journal of Ichthyology 40:704-723.

savvaitova K. a., and L. V. Kokhmenko. 1971. some peculiarities of biology in sympatric charrs from Azabatch Lake basin. Vestnik MGU 3:37-42 (in Russian).

savvaitova, K. a., K. V. Kuzischchin, m. Yu. Pichugin, m. a. Gruzdeva, and D. s. Pavlov. 2007. systematic and biology of the East siberian Char Salvelinus leucomaenis. Journal of Ichthyology 47:53-66.

schlosser, i. J. 1991. stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. Bioscience 41:704-712.

selong, J. h., t. e. mcmahon, a. V. Zale and F. t. Barrows. 2001. Effect of temperature on growth and survival of bull trout, with application of an improved method for determining thermal tol-erance in fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 130:1026-1037.

smith, t. B., and s. skúlason. 1996. Evolutionary significance of resource polymorphisms in fishes, amphibians, and birds. Annual Review of Ecology and systematics 27:111-133.

spencer, C. N., B. r. mcClelland, and J. a. stanford. 1991. shrimp stocking, salmon collapse, and eagle displacement: cas-cading interactions in the food web of a large aquatic ecosystem. Bioscience 41:14-21.

spruell, P., a. r. hemmingsen, P. J. howell, N. Kanda, and F. W. allendorf. 2003. Conservation genetics of bull trout: geographic

Lotek Wireless


distribution of variation at microsatellite loci. Conservation Genetics 4:17-29.

staples, D. F., m. L. taper, and B. B. shepard. 2005. Risk-based viable population monitoring. Conservation Biology 19:1908-1916.

suzuki, r., and t. Kato. 1966. hybridization in nature between sal-monid fishes, Salvelinus pluvius x Salvelinus fontinalis. Bulletin of the Freshwater Fisheries Research Laboratory 17: 83-90.

takami, t., and t. aoyama. 1997. White-spotted charr predation on juvenile chum salmon in coastal waters in northern Japan. scientific Reports of the hokkaido Fish hatchery 51:57-61.

_____. 1999. Distributions of rainbow trout and brown trouts in hokkaido, northern Japan. Wildlife Conservation Japan 4:41-48. (In Japanese with English abstract)

takami, t., and t. Kinoshita. 1990. Morphological comparisons of charr, Salvelinus leucomaenis (Pallas), obtained from Lake shikotsu and Moheji River in hokkaido, Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Fisheries, hokkaido University 44:121-130.

takami, t., and K. Nagasawa. 1996. Predation on chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) fry and masu salmon (O. masou) juveniles by white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) in a river in northern Japan. scientific Reports of the hokkaido Fish hatchery 50:45-47.

takami, t., t. Yoshihara, Y. miyakoshi, and r. Kuwabara. 2002. Replacement of the white-spotted charr Salvelinus leucomaenis by brown trout Salmo trutta in a branch of the Chitose River, hokkaido. Nippon suisan Gakkaishi 68: 24-28. (In Japanese with English abstract.)

taniguchi, Y., and s. Nakano. 2000. Condition-specific competi-tion: implications for the altitudinal distribution of stream fishes. Ecology 81:2027-2039.

taniguchi, Y., Y. miyake, t. saito, h. urabe, and s. Nakano. 2000. Redd superimposition by introduced rainbow trout on native charrs in a Japanese stream. Ichthyological Research 47:149-156.

taylor, e. B. 2004. Evolution in mixed company: evolutionary infer-ences from studies of natural hybridization in salmonidae. Pages 232-263 in A. P. hendry and s. C. stearns, eds. Evolution illu-minated: salmon and their relatives. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Taylor, E. B., and A. B. Costello 2006. Microsatellite DNA analysis of coastal populations of bull trout (Salvelinus con-fluentus) in British Columbia: zoogeographic implications and its

application to recreational fishery management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 63:1157-1171.

taylor, e. B., s. Pollard, and D. Louie. 1999. Mitochondrial DNA variation in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from northwestern North America: implications for zoogeography and conservation. Molecular Ecology 8:1155-1170.

taylor, e. B., e. Lowery, a. Lilliestrale, a. elz, and t. P. Quinn. 2008. Genetic analysis of sympatric char populations in Western Alaska: Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma) are not two sides of the same coin. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21: In press.

Vidergar, D. t. 2000. Population estimates, food habits and estimates of consumption of selected predatory fishes in Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. M.s. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Ward, J. V., and J. a. stanford. 1995. Ecological connectivity in alluvial river ecosystems and its disruption by flow regulation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:105-119.

Weeber, m. a. 2007. Effects of kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) redd superimposition on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) reproductive success in the Deschutes River basin, Oregon. M.s. thesis, Oregon state University, Corvallis.

Whiteley, a. r., P. spruell, B. e. rieman, and F. W. allendorf. 2006. Fine-scale genetic structure of bull trout at the southern limit of their distribution. Transactions of the American Fisheries society 135:1238-1253.

Yamamoto, s., s. Kitano, K. maekawa, i. Koizumi, and K. morita. 2006a. Introgressive hybridization between Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma and white-spotted charr Salvelinus leucomaenis on hokkaido Island, Japan. Journal of Fish Biology 68 (supplement A): 68-85.

Yamamoto, s., K. maekawa, t. tamate, i. Koizumi, K. hasegawa, and h. Kubota. 2006b. Genetic evaluation of translocation in artificially isolated populations of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis). Fisheries Research 78: 352-358.

Yamamoto, s., K. morita, and a. Goto. 1999. Geographic variations in life-history characteristics of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:871-878.

Yamamoto, s., K. morita, s. Kitano, K. Watanabe, i. Koizumi, K. maekawa, and K. takamura. 2004. Phylogeography of white-spotted charr (Salvelinus leucomaenis) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Zoological science 21:229-240.


iNtrODuCtiON

Cooperative research is being con-ducted in many fields of research and development (e.g., education, physics, space science, materials research, com-puter science, clinical medicine) to lever-age the resources and expertise of multiple researchers from many institutions, pro-mote efficient use of labor, and enhance credibility (Maieschein 1993; Chompalov and shrum 1999; Crossley and holmes 2001). since the late 1990s, coopera-tive research in fisheries science has been expanding in the United states (U.s. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004; NRC 2004) and particularly in New England (hartley and Robertson 2006a), although recent federal funding constraints are threatening past gains. Cooperative research programs seek to directly involve the fishing industry and organizations in the design, planning, data gathering and analysis, and/or dissemination of findings from fisheries research. Further expan-sion is possible in spite of funding con-straints—the 2007 reauthorization of the primary U.s. federal fisheries management statute, the Magnuson-stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, added a section that establishes region-ally-based cooperative research and man-agement programs nationwide (see U.s. Public Law 109-479, Title II, §318).

Cooperative research Program Goals in New england:

Perceptions of active Commercial Fishermen

aBstraCt: Cooperative fisheries research will continue to expand throughout the United states with the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-stevens Act, which called for the development of regionally-based cooperative research programs nationwide. We report on a survey of individuals actively engaged in commercial fishing in New England (N = 295) that asked how important and achievable cooperative research programmatic goals are and why. One goal, “the promotion of partnerships between fishermen and scientists,” was particularly important to fishermen because partnerships are believed to be in everyone’s interests, enhance the quality of the science, lead to better management decisions, improve the professional relationships between fishermen and scientists, and speak to a fishermen’s sense of professional duty. however, fewer respondents considered the partnership goal achievable because of a wide range of obstacles. Based upon the findings and published studies on the perceptions of scientists and mangers, we discuss recommendations for cooperative research managers.

Feature: hUMAN DIMENsIONs

troy W. hartley and robert a. robertsonhartley is Virginia sea Grant director and is a research associate professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine sciences, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point. he may be contacted at [email protected]. Robertson is an associate professor in the Department of Resource Economics and Development, University of New hampshire, Durham.

Objetivos del Programa Cooperativo de investigación en Nueva inglaterra:

percepciones de los Pescadores comerciales activos

resumeN: A partir de la re-autorización de la declaratoria Magnuson-stevens en 2007, las sociedades cooperativas de producción pesquera han continuado expandiéndose a lo largo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. La declaratoria es un llamado para el desarrollo de programas cooperativos de investigación a nivel regional. En este trabajo se reporta un sondeo realizado a todos aquellos individuos comprometidos activamente en la pesca comercial de Nueva Inglaterra (N = 295). En el sondeo se preguntó cuán importantes y asequibles son los objetivos de los programas cooperativos y por qué. El objetivo de “promover la sociedad entre pescadores y científicos” resultó ser de particular interés para los pescadores ya que tal asociación se asume de interés común, mejora la calidad de la ciencia, da como resultado mejores decisiones de manejo, enriquece las relaciones profesionales entre ambas partes y transmite el deber profesional al sentido común del pescador. sin embargo, debido a un amplio rango de obstáculos, pocos encuestados consideraron que este objetivo fuera asequible. sobre la base de estos resultados y otros estudios publicados acerca de la percepción de tienen científicos y manejadores, se discuten y dirigen recomendaciones a los directivos de investigaciones cooperativas.


In general, cooperative fisheries research is defined as fishermen-scientist partnerships that are classified along a spectrum from lower levels of engagement and cooperation with fishermen (e.g., log books, chartered vessels) to full “col-laborative” research, with fishermen and scientists working closely in all aspects of the research process (NRC 2004; Taylor singer 2006). Partnerships are central to cooperative research, although the degree of engagement of partners and integration of their knowledge and skills can vary. For the purpose of this article, we use the term “cooperative research” to mean all forms along the continuum from cooperative to collaborative.

several models of cooperative research can be found in New England, including industry sectors setting aside a portion of their profits for research, competitively-awarded federal resources dedicated to cooperative fisheries research (both uni-versity and National Marine Fisheries service [NMFs] administered programs), and non-profit community development loans with cooperative research contract conditions. Nationwide, certain areas of the United states are more active in cooperative fisheries research than oth-ers. Early ground-breaking cooperative research, particularly in the late 1980s on turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawling gear, emerged out of the south-eastern United states through sea Grant and a NMFs science center (NRC 2004; Graham 2006). however, since 2000, better funded and more institutional-ized cooperative research programs have been established in the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and Alaska (Karp et al. 2001; harms and sylvia 2000; Pautzke 2006). These regions have become the leaders in advancing cooperative research program designs (Read and hartley 2006).

One example of a university-based, regional program is the Northeast Consortium, created in 1999. Four research institutions (Universities of New hampshire and Maine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Woods hole Oceanographic Institution) work with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to administer cooperative research outreach, education, competitive grant-making, and science and data management (www.north-eastconsortium.org; hartley and Robertson 2006a). The Northeast Consortium is a $5 million annual program and as of January 2008 had underwritten 171 collaborative

research projects (nearly 90 projects were complete), involving over 355 fishing ves-sels captains/owners, 33 fishing industry organizations or businesses, and over 221 scientists from 55 research institutions or agencies on a wide array of fisheries, gear, ocean process, and socioeconomic topics within the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. The Northeast Consortium’s goals are to:

1. Develop partnerships between com-mercial fishermen and scientists, edu-cators, and coastal managers;

2. Enable commercial fishermen and com-mercial fishing vessels to participate in cooperative research and develop selec-tive gear technologies;

3. help bring fishermen’s information, experience, and expertise into the sci-entific framework needed for fisheries management; and

4. Equip and utilize commercial fishing vessels as research and monitoring platforms.

These four goals were established through discussions of a 30-person multi-stake-holder Advisory Committee (hartley and Robertson 2006a). Further, the Northeast Consortium has been recognized nation-ally and internationally as a model for effective cooperative research program-ming (Gallant 2005).

This article briefly reviews the current literature on the human, social, and insti-tutional dimensions of cooperative fisher-ies research, followed by the presentation of a particular study in New England. We report on a survey of individuals actively engaged in commercial fishing in New England that examined the perceptions of this important set of industry leaders regarding how important and achievable the cooperative research programmatic goals of the Northeast Consortium are and why. Further, while research on fish-eries scientists and managers was beyond the scope and funding of this study, past research and other data are presented from multiple sources to discuss fisheries scien-tists and managers’ attitudes toward the cooperative research goals. We conclude with a discussion of these findings relative to cooperative natural resource manage-ment and science and some recommen-dations for cooperative fisheries research managers.

humaN, sOCiaL aND iNstitutiONaL DimeNsiONs OF COOPeratiVe researCh

To date, there has been limited but growing empirical research on the human, social, and/or institutional dimensions of cooperative research. however, a body of literature provides testimonies and case stories about cooperative research and perceptions about its human and social dimensions. For example, during the 1990s a fisheries resource crisis in Nova scotia led to the creation of the Fishermen and scientists Research society (see www.fsrs.ns.ca/), which emerged from a context of distrust among fishermen and scientists and limited use of fishermen’s knowledge or human resource capability in fisher-ies science (King 1999). Program lead-ers identified the building of trust among parties and the enhanced credibility of the scientific findings as outcomes of cooperative research, and particularly the frequent, joint activities leading to a “common language and…better under-standing of each other” (King 1999:10). While maintaining frequent, direct com-munication, including feedback to fisher-men about research results, the program still experienced a drop in motivation and participation among industry over time.

science managers in NMFs have reported that they believe fishermen are interested in focused cooperative research on immediate concerns in fisheries resource management, and that coopera-tive research builds mutual understand-ing and respect between scientists and fishermen (sissenwine 2001). Michael sissenwine stated in Congressional testi-mony, “Our overwhelming experience has been that people working together learn to understand each other’s perspectives, regardless of personal backgrounds. Owing to this, I believe those who participate in cooperative research will be more respon-sible in fisheries and fisheries management for the rest of their careers, regardless of their roles” (2001:5).

Fishing gear research aimed at reduc-ing bycatch of species of concern has expanded tremendously over the last few decades and it is a particularly active area for fishermen-scientist partnerships. Early bycatch research in Australia in the 1990s demonstrated that cooperative research strategies led to substantial bycatch reduc-tions in prawn trawl fisheries. Reductions were achieved in large part because the


cooperative research placed industry in a publicly visible leadership role in solving the problem, and integrated fishermen’s knowledge into the design of feasible gear technology designs (Kennelly and Broadhurst 1996). As a result, the research findings were more acceptable to the indus-try and adopted voluntarily (Kennelly and Broadhurst 1996).

In one of the early empirical reports on the human dimensions of cooperative research, Conway and Pomeroy (2006) surveyed 15 scientists, fishermen, and sea Grant extension agents involved in a collaborative fisheries habitat research project. They identified four interests and motivations among participants: interest in the research topic, opportunity to learn from others, facilitation of the connection and communication between fishermen and scientists, and the importance of bring-ing fishermen’s knowledge into scientific research. While there were specific chal-lenges posed by the research project (time, funding, weather and seasonal conditions, and the communication challenges arising from limited face-to-face time), specific benefits were identified as well. The ben-efits included mutual learning, improve-ments in data collection methods, and the generation of high interest in continuing to collaborate on research. Further, Conway and Pomeroy reported the improve-ment of professional relationships among three partners, although one respondent reported a worsened relationship with a scientist. Bernstein and Iudicello (2000) also found complex social dynamics among partners in a review of seven cases in the U.s. fisheries. specifically, they reported that the effective motivations to participate in cooperative research depend upon the culture of the individual fishery and the personal relationships that existed among participants.

The challenges of cooperative research have been well reported (NRC 2004; Conway and Pomeroy 2006; Read and hartley 2006; Jones et al. 2007) and include, time, resources, staff capacity, information and data management, over-coming mistrust, and inadequate com-munication and coordination. The 2004 National Research Council (NRC) assess-ment of cooperative research in NMFs included a discussion of the social con-text of cooperative research. The NRC reported that the fishing industry had little confidence in science and used the political process to oppose regulations,

but improvements arose through coop-erative research. specifically, NRC heard examples of cooperative research leading to greater confidence in data, analysis of the data, and the resulting management recommendations.

hartley and Robertson (2006a) linked the emergence of cooperative fisheries research in New England to the mid-to-late 1990s climate of socioeconomic hard-ship in fishing communities, depressed fish stocks, and intense distrust and debate between scientists and fishermen over fish-eries science. In New England, a general lack of trust and respect remains between fishermen and scientists, although fisher-men participating in cooperative research reported forming better partnerships with more trust in scientists and creating more credible science than they had expected (hartley and Robertson 2006b). Both fishermen and scientists participating in cooperative research in New England report greater mutual understanding, trust, and likelihood of long-lasting partner-ships; nonetheless, both remain skeptical that cooperative research findings will impact fisheries management (hartley and Robertson 2006b).

In sum, past research has clearly dem-onstrated that the social context underly-ing the professional relationships between scientists and fishermen in cooperative research is multifaceted and presents sub-stantial challenges to effective coopera-tive research. It is not yet clear if and how these factors differ between “cooperative” and “collaborative” forms of cooperative research. Nonetheless, it could be hypoth-esized that more collaborative forms require even greater attention to the fac-tors underlying the partnerships. The ben-efits discussed in the literature appear to directly counter many obstacles—in other words, while distrust, lack of credibility, and misperception inhibit cooperative research, at the same time, cooperative research seems to improve levels of trust, credibility of science, and degree of mutual understanding and communication. Thus, understanding the human dimension of scientist-fishermen partnerships will very likely improve the design and implemen-tation of cooperative research programs.

The research reported here focused on actively engaged commercial fish-ermen (i.e., currently fishing and not latent permit holders), a very important stakeholder group in New England’s fish-ing industry. More specifically, the study

examined their beliefs in the importance and achievability of particular cooperative research goals, especially the perceived opportunities and challenges of promot-ing fishermen-scientist partnerships. We asked individuals engaged in commercial fishing how important and achievable specific cooperative research objectives were and why. A follow-up open-ended “why” question provided qualitative data insightful in assessing the perceived barri-ers to achieving these cooperative research objectives in New England, which in turn has informed and guided Northeast Consortium programming.

methODs

The survey was designed and adminis-tered using standard data collection pro-cedures and quality controls detailed in Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (1999). Addresses were obtained via a mailing list provided by the New England Fishery Management Council in 2001, which had originally come from the NMFs fish-ing permit holders list. To ensure that the researchers and the research instru-ment did not bias the survey response, drafts were reviewed and pre-tested with an industry and scientist advisory group. The survey was administered to individu-als who were actively engaged in feder-ally-managed commercial fishing in New England in 2002–2003.

The first questionnaire mailing was sent to 1,204 individuals in fall 2002 and, after removing undeliverable addresses and returned surveys, there were four follow-up mailings of two different survey lengths until summer 2003. Respondent occupations for each returned survey were examined and questionnaires from non-commercial fishermen were eliminated from this analysis, leaving 295 respondents out of 420 commercial fishermen (N = 295, 70% response rate). The mean age for respondents was 52 years old with 27 years of fishing experience. Most owned or oper-ated more than one vessel (1.45 mean) and employed a small crew (5.36 mean and 3 median). Fifty-five percent (55%) of respondents earned over three-quarters of their income from commercial fishing and the average respondent participated in nearly four (3.98) different fisheries (i.e., target species, gear types, inshore/off-shore). Overall, the respondents were quite engaged in fisheries management activi-ties: 72% attended fisheries management


council meetings, 69% contributed money to fishing causes, 67% called government officials, and 63% had commented on a fishery management plan. The commercial fishing industry in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank is a relatively small, self-selected population with only a few thou-sand participants and it is getting smaller through attrition and increasingly restric-tive regulations (hall Arber et al. 2001). It is generally difficult to obtain large sample sizes from this population.

Follow-up contacts were made with questionnaire non-respondents in order to better understand the response bias in this study. There were no significant differences across size or format of questionnaires, i.e., long versus shorter versions. There were significant differences across the states, Maine, New hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut (chi-square 13.73 – sig., 0.008). specifically, Massachusetts fishermen were the most likely to be non-respondents. There were no significant response rate differences across all the fishing practices or behaviors (i.e., level of engagement, fishing sector, and attitudes towards and support for coop-erative research) and demographic vari-ables. Nonetheless, while we concluded that there is a potential for response bias between states and the sample list is biased toward more actively engaged commercial fishermen in northern New England, the focus of this article was not impacted by the non-response bias because we were more interested in the views of the engaged sub-sample than the broader population of commercial fishermen. The response bias and the study’s focus on engaged fisheries leaders make it inappropriate to general-ize about the broader commercial fish-ing industry in New England or beyond. Nonetheless, the 295 respondents reflects

one of the largest sample sizes of commer-cial fishermen in the published literature.

Further, the survey included open-ended questions asking why the fisher-man answered the scaled (not, somewhat, very) importance and achievability ques-tions for each Northeast Consortium goal the way they did. We present here an analysis of the comments made by 164 respondents regarding the importance and achievability of one of the Northeast Consortium’s objectives, i.e., promoting partnerships. This reflects all answers from the 295 total respondents. No differences were observed in responses to quantita-tive measures of partnership importance and achievability among respondents of different fishing practices or behaviors or other demographic variables. We elected to present qualitative data on this single goal because partnerships are central to all forms of cooperative research, and the partnership goal exhibited one of the larg-est discrepancies between importance and achievability ratings. The qualitative data underwent standard content analysis and quality control protocols that identified themes and patterns in segments of text comments (Lofland and Lofland 1995 Miles and huberman 1994). Two investi-gators independently coded samples of text responses for attributes of importance and achievability and then consulted on final coding protocols, before one investigator completed the coding. subsequent cod-ing and recoding was confirmed with the second investigator after approximately one-quarter, half, and three-quarters of the data coded. All 164 comments were coded and clustered into overarching themes.

resuLts

Overall, active commercial fishermen respondents considered the cooperative research objectives to be very important, although not very achievable (see Table 1). The goal of integrating fishermen’s knowledge into the scientific framework was considered the most important among the four goals. The most exact, yet narrow goal, i.e., equipping and utilizing com-mercial fishing vessels in research, was considered the most achievable among the goals, although it was also considered less important than the other objectives. Meanwhile, the broader partnership goal was considered less achievable than other goals. Nonetheless, overall the respon-dents remained somewhat optimistic, with between 88% and 93.5% believing that goals were either somewhat or very achievable.

A mix of chi-square and one-way anal-ysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between demographic and attitude and opinion variables associated with the sample of commercial fishermen included in this study. A few significant differences were observed, although differ-ent demographic groups were more alike than different. For example, fishermen were significantly more likely to believe that the goal of integrating fishermen’s information, experience, and expertise into the scientific framework was impor-tant if they had contributed money to fishing causes (p = .002), served on a plan development team (p = .005), contacted a government official (p = .007), or spoken at a fisheries management council meeting (p = .07). Fishermen who participated on a plan development team were also more likely to believe that the developing part-nerships goal was important (p = .005).

table 1. Importance and achievability of cooperative research goals in New England (N = 295).

northeast consortium goal statement how important? how achievable?Develop partnerships between commercial fishermen and scientists, educators, and coastal managers Very: 83.2% Very: 31.6% Somewhat: 14.8% Somewhat: 58.6% Not: 2.0% Not: 9.8%Enable commercial fishermen and commercial fishing vessels to participate in cooperative research Very: 84.5% Very: 47.6% and development of selective gear technologies Somewhat: 12.7% Somewhat: 44.7% Not: 2.8% Not: 7.7%Help bring fishermen’s information, experience, and expertise into the scientific framework needed Very: 91.6% Very: 38.7% for fisheries management Somewhat: 7.6% Somewhat: 49.4% Not: 0.8% Not: 11.9%Equip and utilize commercial fishing vessels as research and monitoring platforms Very: 78.1% Very: 54.5% Somewhat: 20.7% Somewhat: 39.0% Not: 1.2% Not: 6.5%


Other demographic characteristics (e.g., gear type, home port, etc.) did not show statistical significance.

A content analysis of the qualita-tive data regarding why active fishermen respondents considered particular goals important revealed several motives and opportunities for cooperative research in New England, while the responses to why fishermen considered particular goals less achievable identified potential barriers (see Table 2 for a summary of themes). The themes do not reflect completely independent ideas, as there is overlap and a continuum of social factors at play. Rather, the themes identify underlying social phenomenon that influence beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about the partner-ship objective.

Many fishermen perceived that it is in everyone’s interest to participate as a partner in cooperative research. The majority of qualitative responses to the “why partnership is important” question related to the perceived common interest in a healthy stock and its relationship to a healthy, viable fishing industry. sample responses coded as this common interest in a healthy fish stock theme included, “Everyone wants to save the resource,” and, “In order to survive, we'll all need to work together.” Further, the second most often mentioned opinion was that partnerships are important because they enhanced the quality of the science and the resulting fish-eries management decision. For example, fishermen wrote, “Better science = more effective management,” and “Fisheries sci-ence and data [are] not always accurate.” Active commercial fishermen in New England also mentioned that partnerships are important because they may improve the professional trust and mutual under-standing among fishermen and scientists, e.g., “to build trust,” and “we can learn

from research and they can learn from us.” Further, fishermen expressed an expecta-tion or sense of professional duty that they should be partnering and participating in cooperative research; fishermen noted, “Fishermen need to participate in all lev-els of the recovery,” and “[Cooperative research partnerships] will become neces-sary in time.”

In explaining why achieving the part-nership goal may be more challenging, fish-ermen identified many obstacles, including the fishermen’s mistrust and suspicion of scientists and managers (see Table 2). For example, fishermen noted that “trust has been broken too many times,” referring to the perception that fishermen have been harmed by partnerships in the past. Another wrote, “Fishermen distrust sci-entists.” The level of mistrust may extend to active suspicion among some, as one fishermen wrote, “NMFs wants us out of business,” and another added, “Fisheries managers have preconceived answers, which they hire researchers to prove; if the information they gather is contrary, they discard it.”

While active commercial fishermen from New England reported that a com-mon interest between fishermen and sci-entists was a reason that partnerships were important, fishermen also reported that a lack of common interest with scientists inhibited partnerships and made partner-ships less achievable. Fishermen wrote, for example, “Never the two shall meet!” and “Lines have been drawn, walls have been built.” Another fisherman summed up ele-ments of mistrust, suspicion of the man-agers' motives, and the lack of common ground by writing, “We give information on our business; they make a living with this and we get restricted!” Active com-mercial fishermen in New England feared

that cooperation would not be in their best interests.

Negative stereotypes about scientists were observed in the qualitative data, e.g., perceptions of arrogance and disre-spect among scientists toward fishermen. Fishermen wrote, “No one respects fish-ermen,” and, “scientists view fishermen as the enemy.” Other fishermen noted, “NMFs scientists think they are better than fishermen. They look down on us.” still a fourth fisherman added, “scientists think they have all the answers.” Finally, fisher-men acknowledged poor communication and little mutual understanding between fishermen and scientists. One fisherman stated, “Academia and managers do not listen!” Another added, “No one listens to fishermen,” and a third said, “Researchers never listen to fishermen.” At the same time, one fisherman acknowledged “fisher-men lack fisheries education.”

The twenty-three quotes reported above were from different respondents and represents a small fraction (14%) of the total 164 qualitative responses coded and clustered into the motivation and obstacle themes summarized in Table 2.

DisCussiON

Based upon the quantitative analysis alone, there was clearly substantial sup-port for cooperative research objectives among active New England commercial fishermen, with > 97% rating the goals as very important and > 88% rating them as somewhat or very achievable. While a strong belief in the importance and the somewhat less strongly held belief in the achievability of goals was universally held across the active commercial fishing indus-try respondents in New England, fishermen who participated on plan development teams were among the most adamant in

why it is important to form partnerships?Address common interest among fishermen, scientists, and managers.

Best interest of commercial fishing industry.

Enhance the quality of science and the management decisions. Improve the professional trust and mutual understanding among fishermen, scientists, and managers.Address desire, duty, and expectation to participate as a member of the fishing profession.

why it is hard to achieve partnership goal?Mistrust of scientists. Suspicious of scientists' and managers' opinions and interests.

No common ground or interest with scientists. Not in the best interest of the commercial fishing industry.

Negative attitude among scientists toward fishermen. Scientists do not respect fishermen. Arrogance of scientists.

Poor communication and mutual understanding with scientists.

table 2. Motivations and obstacles to scientists-fishermen partnerships in New England.


their belief in the importance of partner-ships and integrating knowledge. This group, along with participants on other management committees (e.g., advisory panels, technical panels, council research steering committees, etc.), likely may be strong advocates for cooperative research. Further, they are better positioned to influ-ence policy and management than the other respondents who stood out among the sample (i.e., fishermen who contrib-uted money to fishing causes, contacted government officials, and/or spoke at a fisheries management council meeting). In fact, the level of management engagement was a better predictor of strong support for integrating fishermen and scientific knowl-edge and importance of partnerships than gear type, sector, fishery, home state, or other fishing industry demographic. These management-active fishermen may be benefiting more directly from additional cooperative research-derived information and could be in a position to advance the science-to-management impacts of coop-erative research. Consequently, tailoring programmatic communication and out-reach activities to this important sub-set of commercial fishermen could enhance impact and program effectiveness.

Fishermen mentioned that a sense of professional duty contributed to why it is important to form cooperative research partnerships. In a nationwide review, Read and hartley (2006) reported that cooperative research promotes a sense of stewardship among the fishing indus-try. This suggests that there may be an emerging professional norm among com-mercial fishermen—an expectation that to be a fisherman, they should participate in research and monitor the health of the ecosystem and the fish stocks. Research on common property resources has suggested that it is critical to have the resource users actively involved in monitoring the health of the resource in order to achieve sustain-ability (Ostrom 1990). Future research could examine whether the sense of pro-fessional duty reflects the beginning of the integration of research into a stewardship ethic among fishermen. If this human dimension of cooperative research is real, the institutional integration of coopera-tive research into management regimes, including co-management, ecosystem-based management, etc., could be critical to achieve sustainability of the resource.

A belief in a common interest among fishermen, scientists, and managers was a

frequently mentioned reason among active New England fishermen for the importance of forming cooperative fisheries research partnerships; however, it also proved to be an obstacle. On one hand, there was a per-ception that “everyone wants to save the resource,” as one fishermen stated; while on the other, there was fear that another fishermen articulated as “whenever fisher-men help with data, it slaps them in the face.” Fishermen thought there ought to be a common interest among fishermen and scientists (particularly an interest in healthy, viable ecosystems, fish stocks and fishing communities), although in practice they did not often see common ground (see Dobbs 2000; hartley and Robertson 2006a). This scale difference between gen-eral, broad common interests in a resource, and more narrow interests in specific fish-eries or fishermen is substantial and the divide between fishermen and scientist on this issue remains wide. The phenom-enon of the same individual holding dif-ferent attitudes toward the same interest when applied at different scales (public good versus individual interests) has been seen in other resource and environmen-tal management contexts, e.g., water resource management (Bruvold 1988), land use planning (schively 2007), and waste management (Rabe 1994; sjöberg and Drottz-sjöberg 2001). Nonetheless, interest in participating in cooperative research in New England continues to grow (Northeast Consortium 2007), in spite of the perceived risk among fisher-men. Cooperative research managers can-not deny that the fishermen’s perceived risk from partnerships is real.

Last, given that mistrust, as an obstacle to achieving partnerships goals, is so strong among fishermen that some suspect that scientists and managers are out to harm them, NMFs and cooperative research program managers should not expect that simply denying the perceived vengeful interest will eliminate this concern among fishermen. Trust is earned and not granted (Lewicki and Bunker 1995); thus, over-coming this suspicion will take time and a consistent pattern of constructive scien-tist-fishermen partnerships. Much of the previous literature on the human dimen-sion of cooperative research identifies the importance of trust; it can be needed to permit cooperation and at the same time, trust can grow with cooperation. however, trust is a large, complex, social construct that needs further research in the context

of cooperative research. Further, hartley and Read (2006) reported that inconsis-tent funding can undermine the ability of cooperative research programs to dem-onstrate the pattern of commitment nec-essary to build trust. Consequently, the funding shortfall emerging in cooperative research today could seriously set back the trust built since 2000 in New England.

sCieNtists aND maNaGers

The findings reported here provide insights into the beliefs of a critical stake-holder in cooperative research and fish-eries managers, i.e., the actively engaged commercial fishermen, particularly in New England. At the same time, the attitudes of participating scientists and managers, particularly toward the impor-tance and achievability of cooperative research goals, is an important question too, although beyond the scope of this research project and funding. Do sci-entists and managers share the views of fishermen or are their attitudes, opinions, and perceptions different?

Past research has provided some indication of the substantial differences between fishermen and scientists. For example, the Kennelly and Broadhurst (1996) case examples discussed above include insights on stakeholder differ-ences in the diffusion process of cooper-atively-derived gear technologies. While scientists and engineers were convinced of the effectiveness of the gear designs by the data analysis and graphical interpre-tations, fishermen who did not directly participate were more convinced by pho-tographs, videos, and meetings with the scientists and fishermen who did partici-pate in the research. These participating fishermen helped other fishermen make and use the gear modifications and the grapevine among fishermen lead to adop-tion of the gear in other ports through-out eastern Australia. so scientists and fishermen may find very different types of information and data convincing and may disseminate their knowledge differently.

For their part, scientists are gener-ally unfamiliar with collaborative pro-cesses and can be reluctant to participate (hinkey et al. 2005; NAs 1995). Conway and Pomeroy (2006) reported that scien-tists, fishermen, and university extension staff perceived their involvement on the same cooperative research project dif-ferently. scientists viewed the project as


more cooperative (joint activities and tasks) versus collaborative (more intel-lectually integrated) than fishermen and extension partners, as defined by Conway and Pomeroy. Extension staff considered the same project as more collaborative than cooperative, when compared to participating scientists and fishermen. hinkey et al. (2005) reported that sci-entists struggle to understand and accept a collaborative process. Thus, scientists and fishermen likely experience the same event differently.

Nonetheless, hartley and Robertson (2006b) have reported some similar outcomes among 60 fishermen and 37 scientists from their act of participation in cooperative research. Fishermen and scientists both claim that they are more likely to enter long-lasting partnerships as a result of cooperative research; a similar finding was reported by Conway and Pomeroy. Fishermen and scientists (to a lesser extent) are more engaged in fisheries management after participating in cooperative research, although they both remain skeptical about coopera-tive research’s impact on management. Finally, fishermen and scientists both report achieving greater mutual under-standing and trust than expected from participating in cooperative research.

Further, hartley and Robertson (in press) also examined whether knowledge integration was important and achiev-able and whether and how fishermen and scientists learned about the scientific pro-cess or fishing practices, respectively from participating in cooperative research. They found that active commercial fishermen believed that scientists did not respect or value their information. Nonetheless, scientists who participated in cooperative research reported learning from fishermen and did not express the level of distrust and disrespect for fisher-men or fishermen’s knowledge that the active commercial fishermen perceived. While this could be due in part to those electing to participate being pre-disposed to collaboration and learning about oth-er’s perspectives, knowledge integration resulting from the act of participating in cooperative research also appeared to be occurring in participating fishermen and scientists.

While this past research and the forthcoming publication of data from participating scientists in Northeast Consortium-funded cooperative research

provides some insights into the percep-tions of scientists, they do not answer the question about scientist’s perceived importance and achievability of partner-ships discussed in this article. Further, data on manager’s perceptions are lacking in the literature. These remain important future research questions.

CONCLusiONs

New England cooperative research program managers need to work to over-come mistrust and suspicion, a lack of mutual understanding about each oth-er’s interests, misperceptions and nega-tive attitudes, and poor communication. Cooperative research provides a venue for communication, addressing these underlying human dimensions of coop-erative research and management.

These data also suggest very high expectations among active New England fishermen for what should be achieved from cooperative research. since high expectations may decline significantly if results are not clearly demonstrated in a reasonable amount of time, it could be critical for cooperative research program managers to understand what the moti-vations, opportunities, and obstacles are to achieving program goals. New England fishermen who are actively fishing today seem to think cooperative research is important, but they are less convinced it will make a difference. This fact, in part, contributed to a set of Northeast Consortium adaptations that expanded science-to-management activities—specifically, Northeast Consortium staff administer scientific peer reviews of each cooperative research project’s final reports and data. Project final reports and accom-panying peer-review reports are then pre-sented by Northeast Consortium staff, sometimes in conjunction with the proj-ect’s principal investigators, to the New England Fisheries Management Council through its Research steering Committee. Further, the Northeast Consortium spon-sors a web page with a map-based inter-face that serves all peer-reviewed data from Northeast Consortium-funded proj-ects. Additional research on the science-to-management process would provide further insights into helpful program-matic adaptations.

It has already been noted that coop-erative research provides important new communication venues for fishermen and

scientists; however, additional commu-nication opportunities should be sought. Cooperative research managers should design and host safe, secure places for communication between fishermen, sci-entists, and managers (e.g., regular project participant meetings, symposia and panels at scientific conferences and professional trade shows, cooperative research work-shops, and community celebrations).

Finally, effective cooperative research programs need to be tailored to the regional context (Read and hartley 2006). At the same time, lessons learned and experiences from active regions (e.g., New England, Alaska and the Pacific Northwest), such as those reported here, should also be shared with other regional initiatives so that programs can be suc-cessful and meet high expectations as quickly as possible. A network of regional initiatives and dialogue within profes-sional associations, such as the American Fisheries society, could more rapidly share, advance, and coordinate the suc-cesses and best practices of cooperative research. The U.s. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) recommended a network of regional initiatives; however, given the need to balance local- and region-specific effectiveness with communication and information sharing nationally, Glass (2006) suggested a network of regionally-tailored, university-based initiatives. The re-authorized Magnuson-stevens Act states that the federal government “shall establish a cooperative research and management program… implemented on a regional basis and shall be developed and conducted through partnerships among federal, state, and tribal manag-ers and scientists (including interstate fishery commissions), fishing industry participants (including use of commercial charter or recreational vessels for gather-ing data) and educational institutions”—see U.s. Public Law 109-479, Title II, §318(a). however, for the regionally-tailored, national network to be most effective, it should be an active learn-ing organizational network that shares information and lessons learned, and systematically monitors the effectiveness of cooperative research programming. Understanding the perceptions of active commercial fishermen and their attitudes toward cooperative research, along with other human dimensions of cooperative research, will be critical to achieve these national goals.


reFereNCes

Bernstein, B. B., and s. iudicello. 2000. National evaluation of cooperative data gathering efforts in fisheries: a report submitted to the National Marine Fisheries service. National Fisheries Conservation Center, Ojai, California.

Bruvold, W. h. 1988. Public opinion on water reuse options. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60(1):45-50.

Chompalov, i., and W. shrum. 1999. Institutional collaboration in science: a typology of technological practice. science, Technology and human Values 24(3):338.

Conway, F. D. L., and C. Pomeroy. 2006. Evaluate the human—as well as the biological—objectives of cooperative fisheries research. Fisheries 31(9):447-454.

Crossley, m., and K. holmes. 2001. Challenges for educational research: international development, partner-ships and capacity building in small states. Oxford Review of Education 27(3):395-409.

Dillman, D. a. 1999. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley and sons, New York.

Dobbs, D. 2000. The great gulf: fishermen, scientists and the struggle to revive the world’s greatest fishery. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Gallant, r. m. 2005. Northeast Consortium: fishermen and scien-tists taking stock. Presentation at the International Council for the Exploration of the sea (ICEs) Annual science Conference. september 20-25, 2005. ICEs, Aberdeen, scotland, UK. Available at: www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2005/Abstracts/Y/Y-list.pdf.

Glass, C. W. 2006. Linking cooperative research and management: partner’s needs and interests. Pages 185-188 in A. N. Read and T. W. hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and man-agement. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

Graham, G. L. 2006. Opportunities for linking cooperative research and man-agement: partners’ needs and interests. Pages 189-191 in A. N. Read and T. W. hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and management. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

hall-arber, m., C. Dyer, J. Poggie, J. mcNally, and r. Gagne. 2001.

New England’s fishing communi-ties. Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) Technical Report. MIT sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

harms, J., and B G. sylvia. 2000. The economics of cooperative fishery research: a survey of U.s. West Coast groundfish industry and scientists. In Proceedings of the tenth biennial con-ference of the international institute of fisheries economics and trade: mac-robehavior and macroresults. 10-14 July 2000. International Institute for Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET), Corvallis, Oregon. Available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/documents/The_economics_of_cooperative_fishery_research.pdf.

hartley, t. W., and a. N. read. 2006. Testimonies from fisheries manag-ers, scientists, and industry: achieve-ments, lessons, and advice. Pages 11-29 in A. N. Read and T. W. hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and man-agement. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

hartley, t. W., and r. a. robertson. 2006a. Emergence of multi-stakeholder driven cooperative research in the Northwest Atlantic: the case of the Northeast Consortium. Marine Policy 30(5):580-592

_____. 2006b. stakeholder engagement, cooperative fisheries research, and democratic science: the case of the Northeast Consortium. human Ecology Review 13(2):161-171

_____. In press. stakeholder collaboration in fisheries research: integrating knowl-edge among fishing leaders and scien-tific partners in northern New England. society and Natural Resources.

hinkey, L. m., K. t. ellenberg, and B. Kessler. 2005. strategies for engaging scientists in collaborative processes. Journal of Extension 43(1):1FEA3. Available at: www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a3.shtml.

Jones, a., s. J. slade, a. J. Williams, B. D. mapstone, and K. J. Kane. 2007. Pitfalls and benefits of involv-ing industry in fisheries research: a case study of the live reef fish industry in Queensland, Australia. Ocean and Coastal Management 50(5-6):428-442.

Karp, W. a., C. s. rose, J. r. Gauvin, s. K. Gaichas, m. W. Dorn, and G. D. stauffer. 2001. Government-industry cooperative fisheries research in the North Pacific under the MsFCMA. Marine Fisheries Review 63(1):40-46.

Kennelly, s. J., and m. K. Broadhurst. 1996. Fishermen and scientists solv-ing by-catch problems: examples from Australia and possibilities for New England. Pages 121-128 in solving bycatch: considerations for today and tomorrow. Alaska sea Grant College Program Report 96-03. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

King, P. 1999. Practitioner’s profile: the fishermen and scientists research soci-ety. Common Property Resource Digest 49(1999):9-11.

Lewicki, r., and B. B. Bunker. 1995. Trust in relationships: a model of development and decline. Pages 133-173 in B. B. Bunker and J. Z. Rubin, eds. Conflict, cooperation and justice. Jossey-Bass Publishers, san Francisco, California.

Lofland, J., and L. h. Lofland. 1994. Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observations and analysis, third edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California.

maienschein, J. 1993. Why collabo-rate? Journal of the history of Biology 26(1993):167-183.

miles, m. B., and a. m. huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, second edition. sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Nas (National academy of science). 1995. science, policy, and the coast: improving decision-making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

NrC (National research Council). 2004. Cooperative research in the National Marine Fisheries service. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Northeast Consortium. 2007. 2000-2006 Cooperative research partici-pants summary. Northeast Consortium, Durham, New hampshire. Available at: www.northeastconsortium.org/docs/2007/NEC_participants.pdf.

Ostrom, e. 1990. Governing the com-mons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Pautzke, C. 2006. Cooperative research: needs and interests. Pages 175-178 in A. N. Read and T. W. hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and management. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

rabe, B. G. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: haz-ardous waste siting in Canada and the United states. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

O. S. Systems

Emperor Aquatics, Inc.

Little River Research and Design


read, a. N., and t. W. hartley (editors). 2006. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisheries research and manage-ment. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

schively, C. 2007. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phe-nomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature 21(3):255-266.

sissenwine, m. 2001. Fisheries cooperative research: testimony of Dr. Michael sissenwine, director of Northeast Fisheries science Center, National Marine Fisheries service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce before the Committee on Resources, subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, U.s. house of Representatives, Ocean City, Maryland.

sjöberg, L., and B. m. Drottz-sjöberg. 2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research 4(1):75-101.

taylor singer, L. 2006. scope of cooperative research in the United states. Pages 3-6 in A. N. Read and T. W. hartley, eds. Partnerships for a common purpose: cooperative fisher-ies research and management. American Fisheries society symposium 52, Bethesda, Maryland.

u.s. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. U.s. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.

u.s. Public Law 109-479. 109th Congress. Magnuson-stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. signed into law 12 January 2007. Available at: http://frwe-bgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ479.109.pdf.


LETTERS: To THE EDIToR

Hansen and Jones (2008) perpetuate the naive perception that “failures” in fisheries management are all or in sub-stantial part due to uncertainty in results from traditional fishery stock assessments, and that increasing the investments in data gathering and stock assessments may not improve the management of commercial fisheries in the future. In fact, the overwhelming evidence (e.g., Mace 2004; Hilborn 2004, 2006) indicates that, where overfishing and resource deple-tion have occurred, it is overcapitaliza-tion and intransigence to implementing controversial but necessary short-term conservation measures—often in the face of clear scientific evidence from fisheries stock assessments—that has led to such declines. We submit that the clearer the scientific evidence is for such measures, the more likely it is that they will be adopted.

The steady decline in the proportion of federally-managed U.S. fisheries subject to overfishing (17% as of the second quarter of 2008; NOAA 2008a) is due to the incorporation of traditional stock sta-tus research into the fishery management council process. Over the next 18 months, regional fishery management councils, acting on traditional stock assessment information, will propose measures to eliminate overfishing in this country. Draft guidelines issued for the fishery management process further emphasize the importance of incorporating uncer-tainty in the establishment of fishery targets that will prevent thresholds from being exceeded (NOAA 2008b). A more problematic issue than the uncertainty of existing assessments is the fact that only 56% of the 230 most important fishery stocks in the United States currently have adequate population assessments. Doing “cheap and dirty” assessments under-mines the credibility of science support-ing management and promotes costly litigation. Such assessments will be prone

to undetected biases, leading to man-agement decisions that jeopardize the long-term sustainability of fish stocks and ecosystem integrity.

The dashed line in Figure 1 of the Hansen-Jones article depicts their questionable assumptions that funding for the totality of the fishery manage-ment process is fungible but fixed, and implies that increasing the risk of bad decision making does not have financial consequences. It seems more likely that higher levels of funding for information gathering will lead to more stocks being assessed, with lower levels of uncertainty, thereby increasing yields and the overall sustainability of fisheries. This success would likely increase the amount of resources available for fishery manage-ment. Moreover, improving the scientific basis for fisheries management could reduce some other cost components of fisheries management, such as litigation and compensation provided when fishery failures occur.

The federal marine fisheries man-agement system in the United States is substantially underfunded to run the processes defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and reauthorized in 2007. For example, all investments in fisheries science (both traditional and ecosystem-oriented) total approximately $400 million per year (including all marine states’ investments). This level of support is measured against a $4 billion annual fishery (first sale value) contributing over $60 billion annually to the U.S. economy (NOAA 2008c). Fisheries management is inherently information-intensive, and the nature of questions being asked now and in the future will require even more timely and more spatially-explicit information to answer. The President and Congress have called for substantially greater fisheries investments in their 2009 budgets to address these gaps, including additional support for single-species fishery stock

assessments. We ought to be investing to reduce uncertainty in stock status, expanding the numbers of species for which information is available, and mak-ing implementation of regulations more predictable, not using “uncertainty” as a red herring diversion to undermine the foundation upon which science-based fishery decision making is built.

—Steven A. Murawski, John Boreman, and Stephen K. Brown,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland

tHe aUtHors resPoNd:

We wholeheartedly agree with Murawski et al. that funding and support for fisheries management are much too low relative to the economic and social importance of the resource. We also agree that fishery management would be improved by allocating more resources to effective stock assessments. Of par-ticular concern is the fact that nearly half of the commercially important stocks in the United States do not have adequate population assessments, as pointed out by Murawski et al. An even smaller percent-age of important stocks are assessed in developing countries, making this problem even more pervasive on the global scale than in the United States (Johannes 1998). However, we do not see our article as being at odds with this line of reasoning.

Our argument was that precisely because the overall funds available for management are relatively scarce, there are difficult trade-offs to face concern-ing the use of these resources. We wish that adequate funds were available to do high-quality assessments on all important stocks, but are not optimistic that this will be case, at least in the near term. If all commercially important stocks in the United States cannot be regularly assessed using state-of-the-art methods, is it better to conduct more expensive assessments

The Value of Information


on few stocks, or less expensive assess-ments on all stocks? How do you decide? In our view, the letter from Murawski et al. fails to address these points. They do not argue that stock assessments are more important than other management activities, but rather that stock assessments are underfunded. We do not disagree. We simply add that given budget constraints, the value of stock assessments should be measured relative to the value of other means of increasing the likelihood of successful fisheries management. Often times, the funding of stock assessments will be the most important use of manage-ment resources. Other times, it may not be. We urge managers and researchers to consider the potential tradeoffs that exist in their systems, and encourage continued dialogue on the subject.

—Gretchen J. A. Hansen, Center for Limnology,

University of Wisconsin, Madison and Michael L. Jones,

Michigan State University, East Lansing

reFereNCes:

hansen, g. J. A., and m. l. Jones. 2008. The value of information in fishery management. Fisheries 33(7):340-348.

hilborn, r. 2004. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: The carrot or the stick? Pages 275-278 in H. I. Browman and K. I. Stergiou, eds. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 269–303.

_____. 2006. Faith-based fisheries. Fisheries 31 (11):554-555.

Johannes, r. e. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243-246.

mace, P. m. 2004. In defence of fisheries scientists, single species models and other scapegoats: confronting the real problems. Pages 285-291 in H. I. Browman and K. I. Stergiou, eds. Perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 274: 269–303.

Noaa (National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2008a. Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.

_____. 2008b. Federal Register notice: Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National Standard Guidelines. Available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/NS1_proposed_revisions.pdf.

_____. 2008c. Fisheries of the United States -2007. Available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus07/fus_2007.pdf.

First, I commend Jelks et al. (2008) for writing a very timely and critically impor-tant article that shows a very disturbing pattern in the status of fish species since Miller et al. (1989) and Williams et al. (1989). Given the actions and inactions of the responsible North American federal and state/provincial agencies over the past eight years, I encourage the AFS leader-ship to forward Jelks et al. (2008) to the responsible agencies in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. A letter should be included urging formal quantitative fish status evaluations and proactive conserva-tion measures beginning in 2009, and offering the assistance of AFS in doing so.

Nonetheless, I have two concerns with Jelks et al. (2008): (1) the use of hydrologic units as ecoregions, and (2) the omission of economic and population growth as root causes of fish imperilments.

There is growing evidence that eco-nomic and population growth are major drivers of fish and fisheries imperilment (Miller and Czech 2005; Rose 2005; Hyatt et al. 2007; Leprieur et al. 2008). I encour-age all authors concerned with landscape-scale species imperilment patterns to relate changes in species status to landscape-scale changes in gross domestic product and human population growth. It is high time that we aid policy makers in seeing the associations of our growth policies with habitat alteration, alien invasive species, and fish species extirpations. If we ignore the root causes of fish and fishery losses (as well as climate change), we cannot take steps to correct them, and instead we will only be recording those declines.

Hydrological units (HUs) are not ecore-gions, despite the contention of Jelks et al. (2008), Abell et al. (2000, 2008), and Maxwell et al. (1995). HUs are simply similar-sized map polygons that are river basins or catchments less than half the time (Omernik 2003). Ecoregions (ecologi-cal regions) are distinctive areas resulting from combined similarities in the mosaic of terrestrial, aquatic, abiotic, and biotic ecosystem components with humans being considered as part of the biota. Characteristics typically used to define these regions include physiography, geol-

ogy, soil, vegetation, climate, land use, hydrology, and occasionally fauna (Wiken 1986). Because they are drainage based and large scale, the HUs depicted in Jelks et al. (2008) merge mountain and plains ichthyofaunas wherever the HUs head in mountains. For example, in Jelks et al. (2008), region 7 includes fish faunas of the Cascades, northern Rockies, Willamette Valley, and Northern Basin and Range. Regions 58 and 62 include the fish faunas of the southern Appalachians, Piedmont, and Coastal Plains. Landscape classifica-tions have limited capacity to explain pat-terns in fish species distributions (Hawkins et al. 2000; Herlihy et al. 2006). However, individual zones (upper, middle, lower) predicted fish species richness better than complete basins in both the northwest (McGarvey and Hughes 2008) and south-east (McGarvey and Ward 2008) United States. Therefore, I recommend that future syntheses of this sort incorporate basin, ecoregion, and river size information to better clarify geographic patterns and aid resource managers.

—Robert M. Hughes Oregon State University, Corvallis

tHe aUtHors resPoNd:

Hughes makes several valid points about our article (Jelks et al. 2008). The primary objective of the article was to update the list of imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes following criteria established by previous endangered species committees (Deacon et al. 1979; Williams et al. 1989), and secondly to analyze changes since the 1989 list. We focused on presenting data using natural boundaries, unlike previous lists, which used political boundaries.

The authors agree that the use (and abuse) of land and water resources by humans is the primary cause of fish and fisheries imperilment. Of the five criteria used for listing in the article, four are directly attributed to human actions. It is plausible that a positive correlation exists between density of humans and fish imperilment. Although many of the listed taxa live in rural areas with low numbers of humans, changes in habitats and introduc-

Freshwater Species Conservation Status list


tions of nonindigenous species can and do occur there. Human population growth and economic development are not mutually exclusive with the protection or even recov-ery of imperiled species. Indeed, humans are key to conserving imperiled biotas. Unfortunately, the pervasive trend for fishes in North America and globally is toward increasing imperilment which may lead to future extinctions. Clearly an evaluation of how population growth and economic policies promote risk for imperiled species is needed. However, that was not an objec-tive of our research and is far beyond the scope or intent of this study.

The suggestion that hydrologic units are discrete from ecoregions is a matter of semantics, scale, and preference. There are many different categorization schemes used to divide the biosphere into units, and each has advantages and disadvantages. Our use of the term “freshwater ecoregion” follows the definition from the World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy as “…a large area encompassing one or more freshwater systems that contains a distinct assemblage of natural freshwater communities and spe-cies. The freshwater species, dynamics, and environmental conditions within a given ecoregion are more similar to each other than to those of surrounding ecoregions and together form a conservation unit” (Abell et al. 2008; see www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/freshwater.html and www.feow.org).

The 80 freshwater ecoregions across North America used in our article are part of a larger network of 426 ecore-gions worldwide “…whose boundaries generally—though not always—correspond with those of watersheds” (also occasion-ally termed “drainage basins” or “catch-ments”; Abell et al. 2008). Ecoregions typically consist of a single river drainage or groups of adjacent ones, or sub-com-ponents, and therefore reflect intrinsic zoogeographic patterns of faunal similarity and endemism (Hocutt and Wiley 1986). Within individual ecoregions there usually are fish assemblage differences between upstream and downstream areas. In part, the freshwater ecoregion concept was developed because patterns of freshwater biodiversity are divergent from terrestrial patterns (Olsen and Dinerstein 2002). Conservation assessments and priorities for implementing protection and recovery strat-egies should appropriately be directed at relevant ecological and hydrological scales. In practice, most conservation efforts are

based on geopolitical boundaries (hence our website http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/afs/ pro-vides state and province data).

For our purposes of analysis and graphical display of imperilment across this large area, the 80 units termed freshwa-ter ecoregions were quite adequate. We did not need a finer scale of resolution to analyze the status of fishes, and patterns of endemism were largely captured using the drainages or groups of drainages. We hope our article will encourage the development and sharing of data sets relevant to fishes so that further analyses of basin, ecoregions of various definitions, river morphology, human population, resource use patterns, and other variables are possible. We are pleased by Hughes’ interest, and that of many others, and hope our article height-ens interest in conservation of aquatic biodiversity and responsible use of natural resources. —H. L. Jelks, S. J. Walsh, and N. M. Burkhead

on behalf of AFS Endangered Species Committee

reFereNCes

Abell, r. A., d. m. olsen, e. dinerstein, P. t. hurley, J. t. diggs, w. eichbaum, s. walters, w. wettengel, t. Allnutt, c. J. loucks, and P. hedao. 2000. Freshwater ecoregions of North America: a conservation assessment. Island Press, Washington, d.c.

Abell, r.A., and 26 co-authors. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience 58:406-414.

deacon, J. e., g. kobetich, J. d. williams, and s. contreras. 1979. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern: 1979. Fisheries 4 (2):29-44.

hawkins, c. P., r. h. norris, J. gerritsen, r. m. hughes, s. k. Jackson, r. k. Johnson, and r. J. stevenson. 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:541-556.

herlihy, A. t., r. m. hughes, and J. c. sifneos. 2006. National clusters of fish species assemblages in the conterminous United States and their relationship to existing landscape classification schemes. In R. M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P. W. Seelbach eds.. Landscape influences on stream habitat and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 48:87-112.

hocutt, c. h., and e. 0. wiley, editors. 1986. The zoogeography of North American

freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

hyatt, k., t. Bigford, t. dobson, B. mccay, v. Poage, B. hughes, l. reynolds, and B. czech. 2007. Economic growth and fish conservation. Fisheries 32(5):252-254.

Jelks, h. J., s. J. walsh, n. m. Burkhead, s. contreras-Balderas, e. diaz-Pardo, d. A. hendrickson, J. lyons, n. e. mandrak, F. mccormick, J. s. nelson, s. P. Platania, B.A. Porter, c. B. renaud, J. Jacobo schmitter-soto, e. B. taylor, and m. l. warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8):372-405.

leprieur, F., o. Beauchard, s. Blanchet, t. oberdorff, and s. Brosse. 2008. Fish invasions in the world’s river systems: when natural processes are blurred by human activities. Public Library of Science—Biology 6(2): e28. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060028.

maxwell, J. r., c. J. edwards, m. e. Jensen, s. J. Paustain, h. Parrott, and d. m. hill. 1995. A hierarchical framework of aquatic ecological units in North America (Nearctic). General Technical Report 176. u.s. forest service, st. paul, Minnesota.

mcgarvey, d. J., and r. m. hughes. 2008. Longitudinal zonation of Pacific Northwest (U.S.A.) fish assemblages and the species-discharge relationship. Copeia 2008:311-321.

mcgarvey, d. J., and g. m. ward. 2008. Scale dependence in the species-discharge relationship for fishes of the southeastern U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 53:2206-2219.

miller, k., and B. czech. 2005. Causes of fish endangerment in the U.S., or the structure of the American economy. Fisheries 30(7):36-38.

miller, r. r., J. d. williams, and J. e. williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-30.

olson, d. m., and e. dinerstein. 2002. The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89(2):199-224.

omernik, J. m. 2003. The misuse of hydrologic unit maps for extrapolation, reporting, and ecosystem management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39:563-573.

rose, A. 2005. Economic growth as a threat to fish conservation in Canada. Fisheries 30(8):36-38.

wiken, e. B. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series No. 19. Environment Canada, ottawa, ontario.

williams, J. e., J. e. Johnson, d. A. hendrickson, s. contreras-Balderas, J. d. williams, m. navarro-mendoza, d. e. mcAllister, and J. e. deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endan-gered, threatened, or of special con-cern: 1989. Fisheries 14 (6):2-20.


resOLutiON ON the DeVeLOPmeNt OF iNstream FLOW PrOGrams

WHEREAS, the mission of local governing fish and wildlife agencies is to conserve, protect, restore, enhance and manage fish and wild-life resources and their habitats for current and future use, benefit, and enjoyment by state residents and visitors, and;

WHEREAS, the mission of local governing environmental protection agencies is to conserve, manage and provide for maximum public benefit of the natural resources, and;

WHEREAS, these mission statements are consistent with the Public Trust Doctrine, which requires that navigable waters, tide lands, and fish and wildlife resources be managed for the benefit of the citizens to ensure long-term sustainability so as to prevent or mini-mize harm to these resources, whenever possible, and;

WHEREAS, in some cases the local governing fish and wildlife agency does not have the regulatory authority to issue water use permits nor the ability to coordinate with and effectively influence the permitting decisions of the local governing environmental agency regarding water use, and;

WHEREAS, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient instream flow remains for fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreational pursuits, and;

WHEREAS, the natural flow regime of streams and rivers is inherently variable and this variability is critical to natural ecosystem function and native biodiversity in streams and their associated riparian areas and floodplains, and;

WHEREAS, since some local governing resource agencies currently recommend instream flows that are a single flow value (e.g., 7Q10) to accommodate instream habitat needs for aquatic life, which is scientifically unjustifiable and which is typically less than the aver-age natural flow of the stream, and fails to reflect flow variability and cannot meet the habitat needs for all species nor maintain healthy fisheries,

WHEREAS, the American Fisheries Society has adopted and published Policy Statement #9—Effects of Altered Stream Flows on Fishery Resources (Revised)—which states “The concept of ‘minimum flows’ and other low flow standards based on statistical records instead of biology (whereby it is assumed that needs of stream fishes can be met as long as some water remains) are seriously outdated,” therefore be it

RESOLVED, the American Fisheries Society, assembled at its Annual Meeting on this 19th day of August in the year 2008 at Ottawa,

Ontario, urges the local governing and provincial fish and wildlife and the local governing and provincial environmental protec-tion agencies in North America to commit the necessary staff and financial resources to the development of instream flow protection programs that contain all the elements listed below:

• Useaninterdisciplinaryapproachtoconductinstreamflowstudiesthatevaluateandprescribeinstreamflowneedsinterms of hydrology, biology, geomorphology, water quality and connectivity. The spatial scope of instream flow studies should encompass the river channel, the riparian corridor and floodplain systems including connected groundwater.

• Useacoordinated,interagency,interdisciplinaryteamapproachwithadequatestaff,trainingandfundingtoaddressallinstream flow issues that exist under each agency’s responsibilities.

• Withrespectandinconformitytoallexistingstate,federalandprovinciallaws,mandatesandregulations,thelocalgovern-ing fish and wildlife agency should exercise the primary authority for determining the appropriate instream flow necessary to restore, manage, protect and enhance fish and wildlife resources and habitats either directly—if it has that authority—or through a formalized process to coordinate such recommendations with and effectively influence the permitting decisions of the appropriate governing environmental agency which has the final authority for setting instream flows.

• Commitappropriatefiscalandhumanresourcestomaintainorrestoreflowsthatreflectthenaturalseasonalflowpatternin terms of intra-annual factors (magnitude, duration, timing, and rate of change) and inter-annual variability (frequency) to maintain or restore the natural ecological function of riverine resources. Instream flow programs and actions should focus on preserving or restoring intact functioning ecosystems rather than on single species or isolated stream segments.

• Incorporate public input into the decision-making process through direct efforts to inform the public regarding (a) how instream flows are administered and the benefits they provide, (b) the opportunities and limitations afforded by local governing and federal laws and policies for each, and (c) ways they can effectively participate in instream flow decision-makingprocessesandissues.

• Monitorriverinepre-projectconditionsandpost-projectresponsesofhabitatandpopulationstoinstreamflowrecommen-dations to document the utility of the recommendation and assess the need for modification of recommendations and where appropriate use a formal adaptive management process, to address uncertainty and modify instream flow recommendations in the event goals are not achieved.

aFs resOLutiON: The following resolution was passed by the membership at the AFs Business Meeting

on 19 August 2008 in Ottawa, Ontario.


Jude Wait wait is a freelance consultant for

natural resources organizations and can be contacted at

[email protected].

following the Western division/Oregon Chapter annual meeting in May 2008, restoration practitioners and fisheries biologists were treated to a workshop packed with presentations by leading experts in the field of stream restoration. Titled “Integrating Practical Approaches,” the workshop empha-sized the need to restore connectivity and enhance natural processes in order to accelerate recovery of dwindling fish resources and ensure long-term benefits. Sessions featured new and emerging scientific perspectives, as well as specific design recommendations for large wood and fish passage projects.

Expensive lessons learned from the past are critically important to share—these include failure of in-stream struc-tures, monitoring of poorly designed projects, death of riparian vegetation, unanticipated offsite flooding, or fish kills in spite of stream habitat improve-ments. Collecting baseline data provides an understanding of the processes dominating the landscape, enabling appropriate design, and also allowing for follow-up monitoring, which informs restoration science and stream system modeling.

Workshop participants learned about the evolution of salmon and the long history of poorly enforced stream protection policies. History is the fifth “H” described by Professor david

montgomery, University of Washington author of the books King of Fish and Dirt. The other major categories of impacts on salmon he described are the 4 Hs: harvest, hydropower, hatcheries, and habitat, the latter being the factor most widely addressed by restoration professionals. Mapping the habitat of the Puget Sound area demonstrates that the 90% decline in fish populations is associated with an accumulated habitat reduction of the same degree, including widespread loss of side channels and valley bottom wetlands. Montgomery contends that ignoring future devel-opment and associated storm water impacts, in the context of restoration plans, is inconsistent with ecosystem goals and salmon survival. Instead, he offers strategies for accommodat-ing human population growth while giving salmon a chance. To address the basic problems, people can recreate forested river corridors that reconnect lowland and upland streams. To reduce impacts of urbanization, low impact development can promote recharge and minimize impervious surfaces through design, bio-swale catchment basins, and installation of pervious pavement.

The challenges of urban stream rehabilitation also include the expan-sion of subdivisions and derek booth, Stillwater Sciences Inc. and University of Washington, predicts that there is an urban stream “coming to a logging area near you.” In the new science of eco-hydrology, biological changes are linked to the responses of streams to urbanization. The changes in stream flow have a huge impact and are hard to address without long-term watershed scale efforts. However, Booth noted that community stewardship can help guar-antee maintenance and raise awareness. Short-term local actions can contribute to overall efforts, including riparian planting, water quality protection, low-

impact development, and preventing further impacts on valuable habitat.

Farmers, ranchers, and woodland owners can also contribute to protect-ing and restoring aquatic habitat. dave buchanan shared the practices and principles that led to him obtaining Salmon Safe certification (a free ser-vice) for Tyee Cellars Wine. He received U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wetland Reserve Program cost-share funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service for riparian tree planting, along with advice and minimal paperwork.

Climate change implies that baseline conditions are no longer the static, “no action” alternative. According to Colin thorne, University of Nottingham, UK, the past is no longer the key to the future, meaning that the concept of a reference reach may no longer be usable—ecological surprises are to be expected. Responses are uncertain and unpredictable, making monitoring all the more essential. To account for climate change, Thorne advised that more room is needed for stream channel adjustments and higher peak flows. This would include measures to widen riparian corridors, remove artificial con-straints, and design culverts for larger flows.

Rebuilding watershed resilience and restoring stream process were themes common throughout the workshop. Understanding which landscape, climate, and watershed and stream-scale variables are dominating a system, over space and time, guides the basis for projects that will be self-sustaining. Janine Castro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Portland State University, warned that projects designed outside the natural range of stream process variables can lead to habitat degrada-tion. “It is imperative that designers of stream restoration projects understand

COLUMN: GuEST DIRECToR'S lINE

Stream Restoration WorkshopJude Waitwait is a freelance consultant for natural resources organizations and can be contacted at www.judewait.com.

The workshop was organized by Bianca Streif and Janine Castro, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


the dominant stream processes, and the relative magnitude between processes, before they settle on a particular channel form.” Several case studies reinforced this message, indicating that a signifi-cant number of restoration projects have failed. Stream processes are affected by many factors, including flow, sediment delivery, vegetation dynamics, and urbanization.

A thorough understanding of the watershed system being rehabilitated reveals the various influences on the factors one might measure. Based on an extensive survey, Leslie reid, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station, Arcata, California, outlined the top 10 reasons monitoring projects go wrong, and pro-vided suggestions on how to avoid the pitfalls. A well-thought out study design and an analysis plan can also improve the cost-effectiveness of project moni-toring. Reid promoted a common rec-ommendation—that a multidisciplinary team of experts review the project—and for monitoring, a statistician is essential. She demonstrated the use of flow charts to help monitoring design and plan-ning. Several presentations displayed the complexities of stream restoration topics with flow charts, which help illustrate the intricacies and interconnectedness of the physical, biological, cultural, social, and political components comprising restoration.

“Thinking like a network” is how Jason dunham, u.s. Geological survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon, frames the current science of river ecosystems and how stream network dynamics affect the resilience of fish. An interdisciplin-ary team can integrate perspectives of physical processes and biological responses. Dunham emphasized the need to address multiple scales, as well

as the probability of location-based species occurrence. He presented the concept of “patches” as improving on less informative and more homogeneous frameworks for understanding water-sheds (hydrologic units). Landscape-scale wildfires were the examples of disturbance used for Dunham’s research where he found that resilience depends on the existence of certain factors prior to the catastrophic fires.

brian bair, usda forest service, Washington state, described how his interdisciplinary team strives to provide complex habitat for multiple species and life stages, and a full range of flows within a flow regime. This group of scientists design remediation projects so they mimic native aquatic species adaptation to natural flow regimes. They consider using the full extent of available habitat, and where resources are limited, he recommended treating floodplains first.

In the quest to restore natural stream processes and habitats, the use of large wood structure placement has increased in restoration projects over the last 15 years. engineer scott wright, River Design Group, Inc., illustrated the drawbacks of many of these projects, the engineering design parameters to consider, as well as essential limiting factors for fish habitat. He highlighted the need to understand the natural occurrence and different functions of large wood in river processes, in order to ensure sustainable large wood place-ment that provides long-term benefit to aquatic resources.

engineer rob sampson, usda Natural resources conservation service, Idaho, presented fish passage proj-ect design configurations, modeling techniques, and hydraulic parameters. He cited several examples of natural and human-made discontinuities in

stream profile—including weirs, con-structed riffles, ramps, and step-pools. His goal is to establish a stable geom-etry that addresses the discontinuity. He learns from natural “knick point” hydraulics and his review of failing projects revealed that they were often designed “ignoring the laws of physics.” Depending on the width and slope of a stream, different types of structures are needed. For example, “ramps” may be appropriate for low-gradient, wide streams, while step-pool structures are more appropriate in high-gradient, nar-row channels.

Phillip williams and Associates (PWA) examine the whole system in designing tidal restoration projects. Dr. Williams reiterated that rigorous plan-ning and design is essential, including a sediment budget, evaluation of vegeta-tion dynamics, monitoring and adaptive management, and simulation models based on empirical hydrologic data. He indicated that marshes are relatively resilient ecosystems when it comes to pollution (e.g., oil spills), but that exotic species, which change the morphology of marsh interface areas and sediment dynamics, have a larger and more long-term effect. Williams also favors restor-ing natural processes and connectivity, rather than extensive, and expensive, grading—but the recovery time for natu-ral evolution can take decades.

Aquatic nuisance species are the focus of Paul Heimowitz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, because they are a very significant threat to native ecosystems. He advocates that anyone working in aquatic restoration help with awareness-building, early detection, and spread-prevention advocacy. He shared the stories of invasive freshwater mussels that highlight the problems of these “habitat snatchers”: they arrive

Continued on page 571


COLUMN: STuDENTS' ANGlE

Institution Representative Program: A Program to Boost Student Participation in AFS

kristal N. Schneider and Robert DoddSchneider is a M.Sc. student in the Conservation Biology Program at the

University of Minnesota and serves as president of the Student Subsection of the AFS Education Section. She can be contacted at ewell002@umn.

edu. Dodd is a M.Sc. student in the Conservation Biology Program at the University of Minnesota, serves as the Minnesota Chapter Student Committee Chair, and is the creator of the Institution Representative Program. He can be

contacted at [email protected].

iNtrodUCtioN

Student involvement in the Minnesota Chapter (MNAFS) has been decreasing since 2004 (Figure 1). The MNAFS Long Range Plan calls for increased student participation in both the Chapter and the parent Society. This responsibility is listed specifi-cally under the duties of the Student Committee chair of the Chapter. Participation of undergraduate students is of particular interest, as there was only one oral presentation by an under-graduate at the 2008 MNAFS annual meeting. Furthermore, beginning one’s AFS membership as an under-graduate can increase preparedness for future graduate school or career opportunities.

In an effort to increase undergradu-ate student participation in MNAFS, the Chapter initiated the Institution Representative Program (IRP). The IRP connects MNafs to Minnesota univer-sity and college faculty and students. It

also encourages meeting attendance, promotes knowledge and awareness of fisheries-related issues and research, and provides an informative and sup-portive social network (Figure 2). The objectives of this article are to describe this unique program in detail, explain how this program benefits students and AFS, and discuss the successes of this program thus far and how success will be measured in the future.

how does the irP work?

The IRP program is headed by the Student Committee chair (SCC) of the MNAFS. The SCC is an active member of the Executive Committee (EXCOM) of MNAFS and is well acquainted with “hot topics” and issues of the MNAFS and the parent Society. The SCC is also responsible for establishing a faculty contact at each college or university that offers degrees or classes in fisher-ies and aquatic sciences. Institutions with social science programs that cover human dimensions in fisheries and

wildlife may also be considered. The sole responsibility of the faculty contact is to serve as an ambassador of AFS for students, enticing and enrolling inter-ested students into the Society.

The second step of the process involves recruiting a Student Committee institution representative (SCIR). There are two methods suggested for recruiting SCIRs: (1) enrolling students through the faculty contact at each university or college, and (2) directly contacting interested students (e.g., during a state Chapter AFS meeting). Students interested in becoming SCIRs then submit applications to the current SCC. The most qualified applicant from each college or university is selected to represent his or her institution on the MNAFS Student Committee.

The selection process for SCIRs is fairly rigorous. Numerous categories are considered during the selection process. The application asks undergrads to list their GPA, major and minor, and related coursework. Space is provided for

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

den

ts

Figure 1. Minnesota Chapter AFS undergraduate student membership size over time.

Figure 2. Institution Representative Program Social/Profession Network outline


discussing any other relevant accom-plishments. Finally, a one-page paper is requested to determine the applicants’ writing skills and to provide applicants an opportunity to express their level of interest in aquatic sciences. Preference is given to students taking coursework or seeking a degree in fisheries or another aquatic science. Students with social science majors who are interested in working with natural resources issues are also eligible. All applicants are highly encouraged to join MNAFS and the parent Society.

Once selected to join, SCIRs are provided regular and current informa-tion on issues within afs. currently, training packages for SCIRs include articles that cover “hot topics” and background information discussed by the MNAFS EXCOM. Some articles pro-vide good examples of how opinions of various constituent groups vary on the same issue. The primary responsibility of each SCIR is to initiate discussions on their own campus that focus on similar topics. Existing MNAFS SCIRs are utilizing student organizations as the primary means of facilitating important discussions. Discussions should have three important results: (1) stimulate critical thinking, (2) increase aware-ness of issues in fisheries and aquatic sciences, and (3) develop leadership skills. Through these types of discus-sions, SCIRs will be better equipped to tackle potential problems by familiariz-ing themselves with fisheries issues they may address throughout their academic and professional careers.

Several other responsibilities accompany acceptance into the IRP. Membership in MNAFS is required. Membership in MNAFS is free for all students, but the SCIRs are also encouraged to join the parent Society. Attending the MNAFS annual meeting

is highly recommended, and each SCIR is encouraged to present any research they have completed while attending. Finally, each SCIR should assist in the recruitment of their replacement; this facilitates smooth transitions between representatives and ensures the pro-gram continues at each institution.

beNeFits oF tHe irP

The establishment of the IRP benefits students and AFS. First and foremost, students selected as SCIRs will strengthen their graduate school applications and resumes. Only one student per institution will be selected for this position, which is a distinguish-ing honor. Secondly, SCIRs have the opportunity to learn more about the impact professional societies such as AFS may have on their educational and professional careers. Finally, all students become more aware of fisheries issues either by serving as a SCIR or interact-ing with their local scIr.

There are no monetary costs associ-ated with beginning this program. Time investments by the SCC, the EXCOM of MNAFS, and other willing members of AFS are all that is required to initiate and more importantly sustain this pro-gram. The IRP was originally created to increase undergraduate participation at the state level; however, students may be more likely to participate in AFS at the Division and Society levels as well. The parent Society’s outreach mission can be accomplished through imple-menting IRPs or similar programs.

measUres oF sUCCess

Although the IRP is fairly new, some measures of its effectiveness have already been demonstrated. The Minnesota Chapter’s Student Committee has experienced a 600% increase in size. At the MNAFS

annual meeting in March 2008, the Scholarship Committee announced they had received a record number of applicants for Chapter scholarships. Further, female participation among the membership of the Student Committee of MNAFS had also increased. Thus far, the IRP program appears to be off to a strong start.

Future success of the IRP will be measured by six metrics. The first mea-sure of success will be the size of the Chapter’s Student Committee. Student membership is an obvious, yet impor-tant measure of success. As of the last MNAFS Annual Meeting, student membership stands at 27 individu-als. The count after the next annual meeting will reflect the effect of the IRP on student membership. Three other measures of success will also take time to analyze. The number of applications for student scholarships and travel scholarships will be recorded over time. Increases in the number of students registering and in the number of oral and poster presentations by students at the annual meeting will also be mea-sures of success.

CoNCLUsioN

The new IRP implemented by the MNAFS Student Committee is a way to get undergraduate students more involved in AFS at all levels. We believe this program could be established and successfully implemented for all Chapters to promote increased mem-bership, enhance member involve-ment, and increased visibility among the general public and fisheries-related professionals alike. We believe that this top-down approach is a first step to achieving a greater unity between AFS Subunits that is needed to pursue the Society’s overall goals.

Texas Chapter of AFS


more events listed at www.fisheries.org click "Who We Are" click "Calendar"

CALENdAR: FISHERIES EVENTS

date eVeNt Name aNd LoCatioN CoNtaCt iNFormatioN

dec 14-17 midwest Fish and wildlife conference

Columbus, Ohio www.2008MWFWC.com

2 0 0 9

Jan 13-14 Lake mead science symposium

Las Vegas, Nevada www.lakemeadsymposium.org

Jan 15-18 spring meeting of the southern division and Louisiana Chapter of the aFs

New Orleans, Louisiana www.sdafs.org/meetings

Jan 22-23 great lakes Urban habitat restoration symposium

Chicago, Illinois www.glfc.org/urbanrestore

Jan 27-31 texas chapter of AFs and texas Parks and wildlife department—Fisheries and harmful Algae: can they co-exist?

Fort Worth, Texas [email protected]

The Texas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society is hosting its annual meeting in Fort Worth, Texas January 27–31, 2009. A symposium of national, international and Texas researchers have been invited to speak on the harmful alga, Prymnesium parvum. The program is also open for posters and talks on harmful algae and general fisheries issues.

For more information: www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/environconcerns/hab/

Or contact: Brian VanZee at [email protected]

ecotrust


Feb 2-5 state of the salmon

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada www.stateofthe salmon.org/conference2009

Feb 5-6 Using acoustic tags to track Fish

Seattle, Washington www.htisonar.com/at_short_course.htm

Feb 12-13 Using Hydroacoustics for Fisheries assessment

Seattle, Washington www.htisonar.com/at_short_course.htm

Feb 15-18 aquaculture america 2009

seattle, Washington www.was.org

march 10-13 25th wakefield Fisheries symposium: Biology and management of exploited crab Populations under climate change

Anchorage, Alaska http://seagrant.uaf.edu/conferences/2009/wakefield-crab/

index.html

mar 30-Apr 3 improving the ecological status of Fish communities in inland waters: international symposium and eFi+ workshop,

Hull, United Kingdom www.hull.ac.uk/hifi/events/index.html

to submit upcoming events for inclusion on the AFs web site

Calendar, send event name, dates, city, state/province, web address,

and contact information to [email protected]. (if space is available,

events will also be printed in Fisheries magazine.)

afs Western division

sonotronics


ObITUARy: RoBERT DAVID BISHoP

Robert David “Dave” Bishop, 74, father of Tennessee’s striped bass program, passed away in September 2008 after a coura-geous battle with cancer. As a youth he loved to hunt and fish, spending many hours and days in the field. He was a member of the last graduating class of the old Knoxville High School and enjoyed attending their weekly reunion breakfasts after his retirement.

From 1951–1955 he served in the U.S. Navy as a member of the Blimp Service out of Jacksonville, Florida. He became infatuated with the fish he saw in the ocean while patrolling. He later told his wife Sue that this was the first time in his life that he had all he wanted to eat. After the Navy, Bishop entered the University of Tennessee. He began his academic career as an engineering student but later changed his major to biology. In

1958 and 1959 he worked as a part-time aide for the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission. He was hired as a fisheries biologist in 1960.

During his early career he worked with population stud-ies and the muskellunge program. He became interested in the newly developing freshwater striped bass program which began in South Carolina. He is now recognized as the father of Tennessee’s striped bass program and successfully crossed striped bass and white bass in 1964–1965, becoming the father of the hybrid along with Bob Stevens of South Carolina. The scientific papers on the hybridization of striped bass x white bass that Bishop presented in 1966–1967 are still being used today.

In 1972, he spawned the first striped bass in Tennessee and in 1974 discovered and developed the tank spawning method for striped bass which is used by several states today. In Tennessee alone, over 375 million striped bass have been spawned using his techniques. Also in 1974 he was promoted to assistant regional manager in Region IV for the newly created Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

In 1988, Bishop was instrumental in procuring a long-term lease with the Tennessee Valley Authority to use Doakes Pond to rear fish for Norris Lake. This pond was built by the Civilian Conservation Corp and had much historic value. Bishop designed and developed a harvest system which put the pond

back into operation and saved it from destruction. As a result, thousands of fish have been stocked into Norris Lake.

In 1996, Bishop was honored by being enshrined into the National Fish Culture Hall of Fame in Spearfish, South Dakota for his work with striped bass and hybrids. This honor placed him among the elite fisheries scientists of the last century. In 1997, Bishop retired from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency after 43 years of service. After retirement, he enjoyed farming and spending time with friends and family.

The sportsmen of the state of Tennessee owe Bishop a great deal of gratitude for his pioneering work done with striped bass and hybrids. He truly was the sportsman’s friend.

He will be missed dearly but never forgotten.

—Mike Smith

Father of Tennessee’s Striped Bass Program


without their natural predators, out-compete and sometimes smother native species, reproduce extremely well, and are associated with human develop-ment and related transport vectors. Heimowitz does not see eradication as a realistic option except when detected early, and he discussed how biologi-cal controls can backfire. While some regions have not yet been affected by invasive mussel species, expansion is inevitable, with invasions of additional species on the horizon. Practical steps that can be taken include: education and outreach, using identification cards that Heimowitz distributed, instituting more check points and cleaning stations for boats and other vectors, enforcing existing laws, and instituting stronger laws.

Removing barriers to habitat is also a priority fish recovery strategy. Instead of Portland General Electric provid-ing expensive fish passage facilities at the Marmot Dam in order to re-license the hydropower operation, “fluvial opportunists” from many agencies collaborated to amass the necessary resources to remove the Marmot Dam.

gordon grant, usda forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and Oregon State University, described this unmatched research opportunity on the Sandy River watershed draining from Mount Hood. A video produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting, “A River Runs Free,” can be found at www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/73-Mar-mot-Dam. Numerical and physical mod-els helped to predict sediment release, but there were unexpected effects. The actual event, along with ongoing moni-toring, provides valuable information for future dam removal projects designed to restore endangered fish runs.

On the Elwha River, two dam removal projects are planned for 2012, which will be the largest dams ever removed. All seven anadromous Pacific salmonid spe-cies have been isolated from their habitat for 95 years. Their pending access to 130 kilometers (80 miles) of nearly pristine habitat is complicated by the presence of dominant coho salmon hatchery fish and an anticipated increase in competi-tion with the recovery of native fish. sam brenkman, Olympic National Park, Washington, provided an overview of

fisheries monitoring and research projects underway. Understanding existing condi-tions will enable successful fish rescue plans during dam removal. Evaluating future responses of Pacific salmonids after removal is important, as the interac-tions among multiple species will vary throughout the watershed, and natural migration barriers will limit the extent of recolonization in tributaries.

Restoring natural process integrity, connectivity, and channel configurations that can withstand responses to climate change are important to enhancing the resilience of stream systems. Stream restoration is complex; the intricacies and interconnectedness of the physical, biological, cultural, social, and political components comprising restoration make it all the more challenging to practice effectively. Self-sustaining projects are likely those planned by an interdisci-plinary team with a whole-watershed, all-species perspective. One participant suggested that the workshop curricu-lum be required reading for all stream restoration stakeholders. This was the fourth workshop of its kind sponsored in Oregon by AFS since 1993.

Continued from page 565

the use of the best available science, the committee will seek collaborative solutions to improve the management of the endangered species programs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine fisheries service. by encouraging the issuance of appropri-ate guidance, regulations, and federal/non-federal partnerships, the commit-tee will play a leadership role in endan-gered species conservation.

Ensuring a Legacy of Abundant Fish and WildlifeThe U.S. public inherited from our forebears an abundance of diverse and healthy populations of fish and wildlife. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Related Recreation,” an estimated 71 million Americans spent over $45 billion on some form of fish and wildlife recre-ation in that year. Yet, several factors, notably habitat loss and fragmenta-

tion, invasive species, inadequate water quality and availability, and the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products threaten our wildlife legacy, not only in the United States but also around the globe. Energies must be directed to develop and implement new poli-cies and programs that improve the management of our fish and wildlife species, provide habitat protections they will need to adapt and thrive in the midst of a changing climate, pro-tect against illegal trade, and promote international conservation efforts.

Achieving the True Promise of Multiple Use

In outlining the mission for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) stated the following: The public lands [shall] be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological,

environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. A new dedication to realizing the goals of this multiple-use mandate is required because the promise of FLPMA has never been fully realized. Public lands are diverse enough to accommodate the development of plentiful energy resources, where appropriate, along with wilderness designations, conser-vation of habitat for wild horses and burros, grazing, archeological preserva-tion, and the many other goals set out in FLPMA. Enactment of the National Landscape Conservation System within BLM is an important first step in the process of achieving these long-delayed goals.

Continued from page 536


AFS ANNUAL MEETINg:

3rd CALL FOR PAPERS

GEnERAL InFORmAtIOn

Aquatic resource professionals are invited to submit symposia proposals and abstracts for papers in a range of topics and disciplines. Participation by scientists at all levels and backgrounds, especially students, is encouraged.

The scientific program includes two types of sessions: Symposia (oral and poster presentations that focus on a single topic) and Contributed Papers (oral and poster presentations on any relevant topic).

Oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes (15 minutes for presentation plus 5 minutes for speaker introduction and questions). All oral presenters are expected to deliver PowerPoint presentations. Presenters must bring their PowerPoint file to the meeting on CD or USB flash memory stick by 7 p.m. the evening before their presentation. Laptop computers and LCD projectors will be provided and technicians will be available to help.

Traditionally, symposia have been dominated by oral presentations and sometimes supplemented by posters. The Nashville ‘09 Program Committee is considering following the example set at the Ottawa ‘08 meeting and allowing “Speed Presentations” coupled with posters to shorten the time required for symposia. This new format elevates the profile of symposium posters through a “speed presentation subsession” that provides a time slot for short (i.e., 3 minute) oral presentations, followed by dedicated viewing of symposium posters. Look for more details in upcoming Calls for Papers on this exciting new way to transfer information and foster communication among symposia participants.

SymPOSIum The Program Committee invites proposals for symposia. Topics must be

of general interest to AFS members. Topics related to the meeting theme will receive priority. Symposium organizers are responsible for recruiting presenters, soliciting their abstracts, and directing them to submit their abstracts through the AFS online abstract submission form. A symposium should include a minimum of 10 presentations and we encourage organizers to limit their requests to one-day symposia (about 20 oral presentations). Regular oral presentations are limited to 20 minutes, but double time slots (i.e., 40 minutes) may be offered to keynote speakers. Symposia with less than 15 or more than 20 presentations are strongly discouraged.

Symposium proposals must be submitted by 9 January 2009 via e-mail to Mark Bevelhimer ([email protected]) with the proposal attached in the correct format in MS Word or WordPerfect; please contact Mark Bevelhimer if you do not receive confirmation by January 16. The Program Committee will review all symposium proposals and notify organizers of acceptance or refusal by 6 February 2009. If accepted, organizers must submit a complete list of all confirmed presentations and titles by 27 February 2009. Symposium abstracts (in the same format as contributed abstracts; see next

page) are due by 6 March 2009.

tROPHy FISHInG

Tennessee offers diverse fishing opportunities, but most people don’t know that Tennessee also boasts the world record walleye (25 lbs.) and smallmouth bass (11.9 lbs.). Tennessee also claims the world records for bighead carp (90 lbs.), yellow bass (2.6 lbs.), and freshwater drum (54.5 lbs.). Tennessee’s state record striped bass (a whopping 65.4 pounder) is the second largest inland striped bass ever caught!

StudEnt SymPOSIum

The AFS Education section will once again be sponsoring a Student Symposium. Students interested in being chosen to participate and compete for Best Student Paper and Best Student Poster will have the opportunity to indicate that during the abstract submission process. We urge interested students to read about the process before going online to submit an abstract: Sutton, T. M., D. L. Parrish, and J. R. Jackson. 2007. Time for a change: revision of the process for judging student presentations at the annual meeting. Fisheries 32(1):42-43. Please contact Jim Peterson (chair, Best Student Paper Committee; [email protected]) or Richard Fulford (Chair, Best Student Poster Committee; [email protected]) for additional information.

Students not participating in the Student Symposium will have the opportunity during the abstract submission process to indicate that they would like to receive written feedback on their presentations and posters. Feedback will be provided by volunteers and the process will also be directed by the AFS Education Section. Volunteers will have the opportunity to pick-up blank forms and drop-off completed forms at several locations around the meeting site. A copy of the evaluation form can be found on the Education Section webpage (July 2008 newsletter) at http://www.fisheries.org/units/education/newsletters/edsecnews_v29_1.pdf

(ABOVE) world-class brown trout tisheries exist in several tennessee tailwaters. (BELOW) d. l. hayes in 2005 with a mount of the world record smallmouth bass he caught in dale Hollow Lake, tennessee-kentucky, in the 1950s.

30 AuGuSt–3 SEPtEmBER

2009


FORmAt FOR SymPOSIum PROPOSALS

1. Symposium title: Brief but descriptive 2. Organizer(s): Provide name, address,

telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of each organizer. Indicate by an asterisk the name of the main contact person.

3. Description: In 300 words or less, describe the topic addressed by the proposed symposium, the objective of the symposium, and the value of the symposium to AFS members and participants.

4. Format and time requirement: Indicate the mix of formats you are considering (oral, speed presentation, poster). State the time required for regular oral presentations (i.e., 20 minutes per speaker) and the time required for speed presentations (if any) and poster viewing (3 minutes per speaker plus time for poster viewing).

5. Chairs: Supply name(s) of individual(s) who will chair the symposium.

6. Presentation requirements: We encourage speakers to use PowerPoint for presentations. All Mac-based presentations must be converted to PC format prior to the meeting. Presentations in other software programs must be approved prior to acceptance.

7. Audiovisual requirements: LCD projectors and laptops will be available in every room. Other audiovisual equipment needed for the symposium will be considered, but computer projection is strongly encouraged.

8. Special seating requests: Standard rooms will be arranged theatre-style. Please indicate special seating requests (for example, “after the break, a panel discussion with seating for 10 panel members will be needed”).

9. List of presentations: Please supply information in the following format:

Presenter’s name 1. _____________ 2. _____________ Tentative title of presentation 1. _____________ 2. _____________ Confirmed (yes/no) 1. _____________ 2. _____________ Presentation format

(regular or speed) 1. _____________ 2. _____________ 10. Sponsors: If applicable, indicate sponsorship.

Please note that a sponsor is not required.

For abstracts submitted to a Symposium: If you are invited to participate in a particular symposium, you will have the opportunity to choose the symposium title during the online abstract submission process for “Invited Symposium Papers” (which will occur after the 6 February 2009 deadline for contributed paper abstracts).

COntRIButEd ORAL And POStER PAPERS

The Program Committee invites abstracts for presentations (oral and poster) at contributed paper sessions. Authors must indicate their preferred presentation format: (1) oral only, (2) poster only, (3) oral preferred, but poster acceptable. Only one oral presentation will be accepted for each senior author. Poster submissions are encouraged because of the limited time available for oral presentations. The program will include a dedicated poster session to encourage discussion between poster authors and attendees.

Abstracts for contributed oral and poster papers must be received by 6 February 2009. All submissions must be made using the AFS online abstract submission form, which is available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org). When submitting your abstract:

• Use a brief but descriptive title, avoiding acronyms or scientific names in the title unless the common name is not widely known;

• List all authors, their affiliations, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses;

• Provide a summary of your findings and restrict your abstract to 200 words.

All presenters will receive a prompt e-mail confirmation of their abstract submission and will be notified of acceptance and the designated time and place of their presentation by 30 April 2009.

For contributed papers, you will have the opportunity during the abstract submission process to indicate which two general topics best fit the concept of your abstract. Topics include: Bioengineering, Communities and Ecosystems, Contaminants and Toxicology, Education, Fish Culture, Fish Health, Fish Conservation, Freshwater Fish Ecology, Freshwater Fisheries Management, Genetics, Habitat and Water Quality, Human Dimensions, Marine Fish Ecology, Marine Fisheries Management, Native Fishes, Physiology, Policy, Population Dynamics, Statistics and Modeling, Species Specific (specify) and Other (specify). Including this information in your submission will help the Program Committee assign your talk, if accepted, to the most appropriate session.

Late submissions will not be accepted. AFS does not waive registration fees for presenters at symposia, workshops, or contributed paper sessions. All presenters and meeting attendees must pay registration fees. Registration forms will be available on the AFS website (www.fisheries.org) in May 2009; register early for cost savings.

For information on how to construct a great poster, please take a moment to consult Carline 2007. (Guidelines to designing posters. Fisheries 32:306-307). The maximum allowable poster size will be 91 cm X 112 cm (36" x 44") in a landscape or portrait format.

FORmAt FOR SuBmIttEd ABStRACtS

For abstracts submitted to a Symposium: Enter Symposium title: ________________________ Specify format: 1. Oral 2. Speed presentation (accompanied by poster) For abstracts submitted as a Contributed Paper: Enter 2 choices for topic: ______________________

______________________ Specify format: 1. Oral 2. Poster 3. Oral preferred,

but poster acceptable For all abstracts: Title: An example abstract for the AFS 2009

Annual Meeting Authors:

Bettoli, Phillip. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, 205 Pennebaker Hall, Tennessee Tech University, Cookeville, Tennessee 38505; 931/372-3086; [email protected]

Bevelhimer, Mark. Environmental Sciences Division—ORNL, BLDG 1505, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831; 865/576-0266; [email protected]

Fiss, Frank. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, Tennessee 37204; 615/781-6519; [email protected]

Presenter: Phillip Bettoli Abstract: Abstracts are used by the Program

Committee to evaluate and select papers for inclusion in the scientific and technical sessions of the 2009 AFS Annual Meeting. An informative abstract contains a statement of the problem and its significance, study objectives, principal findings and application, and it conforms to the prescribed format.

Student presenter? (Work being reported was completed while a student): No

COntACtS

General Meeting Chair Bobby Wilson

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency [email protected]

615/781-6578

Local Arrangements Chair

Dave Rizzuto Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

[email protected] 731/225-4422 Tim Churchill


931/781-6645

Contributed Papers Chair

Phil Bettoli U.S. Geological Survey/

Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit

[email protected] 931/372-3086

Symposia Chair Mark Bevelhimer

Oak Ridge National Laboratory [email protected]

865/576-0266

Posters Chair Frank Fiss


615/781-6519

Organizing a continuing education course or workshop?

Please check future Calls for Papers for information on who to contact.

If you seek immediate assistance, please contact Contributed Papers Chair

Phil Bettoli.

AFS 2009 AnnuAL MEETinG 1st CALL FOR PAPERs • NAshviLLE, tENNEssEE

the marriott renaissance Hotel and adjoining Nashville Convention Center offer spacious facilities to host the nashville '09 AFs meeting.


pUbLICATIONS: Book REVIEW

bluegills: biology and behavior. By S. Spotte. AFS, Bethesda, Maryland. 2007. 214 pp.; $35 ($24.50 for AFS members) (paper); store.afsbooks.org/55054p.html.

With Bluegills: Biology and Behavior, Stephen Spotte offers up a treatise on everything one might want to know about this popular, nearly ubiquitous freshwater sunfish. Because the protagonist is a crit-ter already near and dear to my heart, I really wanted to like this book. So, when it arrived in my mailbox, I grabbed my pen and a coffee and, with much anticipation, sat down to read. At first glance, one can’t help but be impressed with the comprehensive coverage and level of detail this book provides about an interesting and unique little Lepomid. Through eight chapters, Spotte touches on all aspects of bluegill life history and ecology, beginning with move-ment, sensory percep-tion, and foraging (chapters 1–3), continu-ing through competition and predation (chapters 4–5), and finishing off with reproduction (chap-ter 6), development, growth, and mortality (chapter 7), and man-agement (chapter 8). In sum, the book covers 150 pages and refer-ences more than 500 citations (via 1,327 footnotes).

Therein, unfortu-nately, lies the first of many challenges. By the middle of the first chapter it becomes clear that the text is detailed

to near incomprehensibility. A paragraph on blue-gill movement begins, “The hydrodynamic vortices around a swimming fish resemble the dipole field of a submerged vibrating sphere in which pressure gradients cause fluid particles to fall off and acceler-ate away from the sides, disengaging with the cube of the distance and proportional to the volume of the moving object”—a sentence sure to cause collec-tive head scratching among most fishery scientists. The problem is most of the book is presented at that depth of detail. Indeed, just seven lines into the first chapter I read, “The starting vortex, or detached eddy, has a counter clockwise rotation (+K). The

bound vortex, or bound circulation, which has a clockwise (-K) rotation, remains attached until the starting vortex has been shed.” Suddenly doubting the quality of my public education, I handed the book to a colleague and asked him to read the first chapter. In 30 seconds, he was back with raised eyebrows, having read only the first page. His response: “Wow.” Truth be told, information this detailed would likely take a separate expert to review each chapter; even with broad and reasonably comprehen-sive training in ecology and physiology, I felt unqualified to review at least three of the eight chapters in the book.

In addition to depth of detail, the sheer volume of informa-tion presented cre-

MyriaxFisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • www.fisheries.org 575

ates additional issues. The first is that Spotte often so overwhelms the reader with specific details that general patterns are obscured. For example, so many site- and state-specific data on bluegill spawning peri-ods are presented that I suspect the uninformed reader would miss the simple point that bluegill typically exhibit a protracted spawning season that stretches through much of the spring and summer. Ironically, this problem works against him in just the opposite way; Spotte often presents extremely site-specific information as generalizable to the species as a whole. In his introduction to the final chapter, Spotte notes, “What we know is never certain because each lake is dynamic and possessed of unique vulnerabilities.” Unfortunately, he mostly fails to apply that admoni-tion to the previous seven chapters. The book would have benefited from more informed interpretation, to provide the reader with a clear picture of which studies are valid, supported, and generally applicable, and which are specific and anecdotal. Instead, it reads as a series of “facts” collected from a vast body of published literature (some widely cited and generally accepted, some not) and offered in boxcar fashion, one following the next. Some topics are covered com-pletely and competently, others really miss the mark (foraging and stunting are two, in particular, that come to mind). This leads to problems with organization and repetition, which are exacerbated by the construct of the chapters; much of the information is repeated within and among chapters, and necessary contextual-ization is often missing.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle for this book, however, is the lack of a clear audience. In his introduction, Spotte indicates that, “The text you are about to read is unconventional in both organization and content....Readers must be willing to undertake an intellectual challenge....” In this case, he’s right on the mark. The problem is, it’s just not clear to me who’s going to be up for that undertaking.

—D. Derek AdayDepartment of Zoology

North Carolina State UniversityRaleigh, NC 27695-7617

4D Environmental Data Analysis ...with Vision!

Find out moreweb www.eonfusion.myriax.comemail [email protected]

www.myriax.com

> Manipulate and visualize time-varying spatial data

> Streamline the integration of large and diverse data sets

> Explore and analyze relationships among multiple variables

> Easily communicate complex results in an engaging way


assistant Professor, Vertebrate Physiological ecology, universisty of California, Davis, Department of Wildlife, Fish, Conservation Biology.responsibilities: Develop a vigorous, extramurally-funded research program that addresses questions relevant to the physiological ecology of vertebrates in the diverse aquatic ecosystems of California and the region. Collaborate in research on themes such as climate change and water resource and management, and threatened and endangered species, in concert with faculty in the Center for Watershed Science, Center for Aquatic Biology and Aquaculture, Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Bodega Marine Laboratory, and elsewhere. Teaching responsibilities will be determined in consultation with the department chair, but will include an upper division undergraduate course that integrates physiological ecology across vertebrate groups from fish to mammals, and other undergraduate and graduate courses that reflect the candidate's expertise and contribute to the department's mission, as well as participate in departmental team-taught courses. Collegiality and good teaching are valued highly in the department, and the appointee will be expected to participate in committee work, administration, undergraduate and graduate advising, and other tasks that are shared by department faculty. Tenure-track assistant professor level, nine-month position, with the possibility of an appointment in the California Agricultural Experiment station.Qualifications: Ph.D. in a biological discipline relevant to vertebrate physiological ecology. Evidence of research excellence in the discipline of vertebrate physiological ecology,

emphasizing aquatic species or systems, and ability to obtain extramural support for research activities. Interest in developing a research program relevant to vertebrate physiological ecology in aquatic ecosystems of California. Evidence of potential for excellence in teaching, e.g., experience, awards, course reviews, letters from colleagues. Demonstrated oral and written communication skills, including the ability to present information to non-scientific and public audiences. Evidence of collegiality and professional service consistent with departmental, campus, and professional citizenship. Interest in training/mentoring graduate students and in advising undergraduate students.Contact: Committee Chair Deborah Elliott-Fisk, Department of Wildlife, fish, conservation biology, one Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616; 530/574-5256; 530/752-4154; [email protected].

tagging trailer assistant, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Idaho. responsibilities: Maintain and operate manual tagging trailers and/or mobile autofish tagging trailers, including setting up and tearing down at hatchery sites, conducting marking/ tagging operations, and operating computers and software programs associated with the trailers. Assist with maintenance of fish including feeding fish, cleaning tanks, establishing feeding schedules, assessing growth, monitoring fish health, and maintaining data records and performing routine analysis. Travel to hatcheries throughout Idaho will require extended overnight stays.

Qualifications: Experience demonstrating ability to perform the work of the position or one year of education above the high school level that included scientific or technical courses. Previous experience working in and operating fish tagging trailers, knowledge of fishery biology, knowledge of fish husbandry, and knowledge of personal computer applications.Closing date: 31 December 2008.Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/Employment_Careers.

tagging trailer operator, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Idaho.responsibilities: Maintain and operate manual marking trailers and/or mobile autofish tagging trailers, including setup and tear down at hatchery sites. Conduct marking and tagging operations including PIT tagging and Coded-wire tagging. Operate computers and software programs associated with the trailers. Supervise tagging assistants. Assist with other duties as needed. State-wide travel during the tagging season is required.Qualifications: B.S. with a major in biological sciences. Previous experience operating and maintaining tagging trailers in a hatchery setting is highly desirable. Knowledge of fishery biology, fish husbandry, computer applications, and the ability to communicate with others effectively both orally and in writing.Closing date: 31 December 2008.Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/Employment_Careers.

tagging Coordinator, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Idaho.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: JoB CENTER

To see more job listings, go to www.fisheries.org and click Job Postings.

emPLoYers: to list a job opening on the aFs online Job Center submit a position description, job title, agency/company, city, state, responsibilities, qualifications, salary, closing date, and contact information (maximum 150 words) to [email protected]. online job announcements will be billed at $350 for 150 word increments. Please send billing information. listings are free (150 words or less) for organizations with associate, official, and sustaining memberships, and for individual members, who are faculty members, hiring graduate assistants. if space is available, jobs may also be printed in Fisheries magazine, free of additional charge.

California Department of Fish and Game


responsibilities: Travel state-wide during the tagging season.Qualification: Successful supervisory skills. B.S. with a major in biological sciences. Experience operating and maintaining a manual marking and tagging trailer in a hatchery setting. Experience operating and maintaining a mobile autofish tagging trailer is desirable. Knowledge of fishery biology, management methods, tagging techniques, and the ability to manage and analyze data.Closing date: 31 December 2008.Contact: Apply at www.psmfc.org/Employment_Careers.

graduate Assistantships, Fish and Aquatic Ecology, Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural resources.responsibilities: Participate in research projects exploring ecological dynamics of fish in Lake Michigan and inland lakes in Indiana. Projects involve an integration of field studies, laboratory analyses, and quantitative modeling analyses. Specific research topics include: Early life stage and recruitment dynamics, intra-specific life history trait variation, and ecological effects of eutrophication.Qualifications: Minimum qualifications include a B.S. for M.S. position or M.S. for Ph.D. position in related field, GPA of 3.2, and competitive GRE scores at least 50th percentile for quantitative and verbal 4.0 for analytical writing. Assistantships include 12-month stipend, full tuition coverage, and insurance.Closing date: 19 December 2008.Contact: Submit cover letter, CV, GRE scores (unofficial are fine), transcript (unofficial is fine), and contact

information for three references to Tomas Hook, [email protected], 765/496-6799. See www.fnr.purdue.edu/faculty/hook/index.shtml.

m.s. and Ph.d. research Fellowships, utah state university, College of Natural Resources.responsibilities: research any aspects of natural resources science and management.salary: M.S—$15,000 per year for 2 years. PhD—$20,000 per year for 4 years. Both include tuition waiver and student insurance.Qualifications: See cnr.usu.edu Quick Links S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney Graduate Fellowships.Closing date: 15 January 2008.Contact: associate dean Nancy Mesner, utah state university, College of Natural Resources, 5200 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84322-5200; 435/797-1693 See brochure at cnr.usu.edu Quick Links S.J. and Jessie E. Quinney Graduate Fellowships. Apply at www.usu.edu/graduateschool/apply/. [email protected].

seasonal (temporary) Fisheries aide, Game and Fish Department, North Dakota. responsibilities: Assist fisheries personnel with reproduction and population test netting, trap and transport of different fish species, limnological sampling, spawning and data compilation, includes loading and unloading boats, nets, and other equipment. Assist with the construction of fisheries development projects. Maintain equipment of various types of gear including net repair. Vehicles provided for required overnight travel.

Qualifications: Student enrolled at a college or university majoring in an aquatic biology related field and be in good academic standing with at least one college level course of ichthyology, chemistry, and math. Ability to lift at least 50 pounds. Valid driver's license. Ability to work outdoors in varying weather conditions.salary: $8.25-$13.50 plus expenses while away from main work station. Closing date: 1 February 2008.Contact: Paul Schadewald, 100 North Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501. See applications at www.nd.gov/hrms/jobs/appforms.html.

m.s. and Ph.d. Assistantships, Division of Biology, Kansas State university.

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

CA Department of Fish and Game

To gain a better understanding of fish species population dynamics in response to Delta inflow and hydrodynamics in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, the Ecosystem Restoration Program is looking for experts with modeling experience to provide technical support that will assist policy makers in the California Department of Fish and Game to make management decisions. Individuals with technical experience in the use of water operations models including CalSIM and DSM2, as well as performing evaluations of fish population responses to changing environmental conditions, are encouraged to submit a Statement of Qualification by December 15, 2008. The RFQ can be downloaded at www.cscr.dgs.ca.gov. Direct all inquiries to Scott Cantrell at 916-445-1272, or [email protected].


responsibilities: Work on conservation and management of river and stream fishes or applied fisheries management (www.k-state.edu/fisheries/) with Craig Paukert or work on effects of land use, hydrology, and nonnative fishes on stream fishes or ecosystem effects of species on streams (www.ksu.edu/fishecology/) with Keith Gido.Qualifications: Interested in conservation/management of fishes. B.S. or M.S. degree in fisheries or related field, competitive GPA and GRE scores.salary: Includes tuition waiver. Closing date: 15 January 2009.

Contact: Send letters of interest, CV, GRE scores and contact information for two references to Craig Paukert, [email protected]; or Keith Gido [email protected]; Division of Biology, 116 Ackert Hall, Kansas state university, Manhattan, Kansas 66506. Use e-mail for questions. See www.k-state.edu/fisheries/.

m.s. or Ph.d. Assistantship in Fisheries/aquatic ecology, University of Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. responsibilities: Research topics are varied and flexible, but individuals with interests related to recruitment, behavior, reproductive strategies, and management

of largemouth bass; or population ecology of muskellunge are prefered.starting dates: June through August 2009.Qualifications: B.S. or M.S. in fisheries/aquatic ecology.salary: $17,000 per year, includes tuition waiver.Closing date: 1 January 2009.Contact: Send cover letter, resume, copies of transcripts, GRE scores, and three letters of reference to David H. Wahl, University of Illinois, 1816 S. Oak Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820 217 728 4400; d-wahl @uiuc.edu.

2009 Membership Application American Fisheries Society • 5410 Grosvenor Lane • Suite 110 • Bethesda, MD 20814-2199

301/897-8616 x203 or 218 • fax 301/897-8096 • www.fisheries.org Name Please provide (for AFS use only) employer Address phone Industry Fax Academia E-mail Federal gov't. city State/province Recruited by an AFS member? yes__ no__ State/provincial gov't. Zip/postal code country Name other membersHiP tYPe (includes print Fisheries and online Membership Directory) North america/dues other dues Developing countries I (includes online Fisheries only) N/a $ 5 Developing countries II N/a $25 regular $76 $88 Student (includes online journals) $19 $22 Young professional (year graduated) $38 $44 Retired (regular members upon retirement at age 65 or older) $38 $44 Life (Fisheries and 1 journal) $1,737 $1,737 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 2 years) $1,200 $1,200 Life (Fisheries only, 2 installments, payable over 1 year) $1,000 $1,000 JoUrNaL sUbsCriPtioNs (optional) North america other Journal name Print Online Print Online Transactions of the American Fisheries Society $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Fisheries Management $43 $25 $48 $25 North American Journal of Aquaculture $38 $25 $41 $25 Journal of Aquatic Animal Health $38 $25 $41 $25 Fisheries InfoBase $25 $25 PaYmeNt Please make checks payable to American Fisheries Society in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank or pay by VISA or MasterCard. Check P.O. number visa MasterCard account # Exp. date signature All memberships are for a calendar year. New member applications received January 1 through August 31 are processed for full membership that calendar year (back issues are sent). Those received September 1 or later are processed for full membership beginning January 1 of the following year.

Fisheries, Vol. 33 No. 11, November 2008

Paid:

Advanced Telemetry Systems


ATS takes fisheries research

to new depths and detection ranges.

To determine movement patterns and conduct stock assessment of Chinook Salmon on the Yukon and other Alaskan Rivers, researchers turned to ATS.

Very sensitive receiver/datalog-gers, in combination with uniquely coded fish transmitters, were de-signed by ATS to accurately detect fish movement and run timing in the deep and remote reaches of the rivers. Hourly data was re-layed via satellite to researchers and participating agencies.

On one project, researchers cap-tured 1,000 salmon at the mouth of the river and implanted a uniquely coded transmitter. The fish were then tracked as they pro-gressed upriver using 39 fixed data collection sites with satellite data transmission capability. The study also used ATS receivers equipped with on-board GPS for aerial sur-vey work.

With data capture rates as high as 98 percent, ATS coded transmit-ters and R4500 Receiver/Datalog-gers resulted in increased detec-tion ranges of up to 100 percent.

Tracking systems designed by ATS play a key role in aiding fisheries professionals conducting impor-tant research worldwide. To learn more about how our systems will benefit your next project, contact an ATS representative today.

WWW.ATSTRACK.COM MINNESOTA. 763-444-9267 [email protected]

Fish stock assessment and movement patterns

TRAN S M ITTE RSR ECE IVE RS

G PS SYSTE M SANTE N NA SYSTE M SR ECE IVI NG TOWE RS

CON S U LTI NG

FI E LD STU DYFinding Solut ions. Del ivering Results .

Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc.


Fisheries · Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • 531 Fisheries AmericAn Fisheries...

Documents

Transcript of Fisheries · Fisheries • vol 33 no 11 • november 2008 • 531 Fisheries AmericAn Fisheries...